Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

MESSAGES FROM THE QUEEN

LESOTHO (GIFT OF A CLERKS' TABLE AND CHAIRS)

The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as follows:

I have received your Address praying that I will give directions for the presentation on behalf of your House of a gift of a clerks' table and chairs to the Lesotho National Assembly and assuring me that you will make good the expenses attending the same.

It gave me the greatest pleasure to learn that your House desires to make such a presentation and I will gladly give directions for carrying your proposal into effect.

BOTSWANA (GIFT OF A PARLIAMENTARY LIBRARY AND SILVER INKSTAND)

The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as follows:

I have received your Address praying that I will give directions for the presentation on behalf of your House of a gift of a parliamentary library and a silver inkstand to the Botswana National Assembly and assuring me that you will make good the expenses attending the same.

It gave me the greatest pleasure to learn that your House desires to make such a presentation and I will gladly give directions for carrying your proposal into effect.

INCOME TAX

The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as follows:

I have received your Address praying that, on the ratification by His Majesty the King of the Belgians of the Con-

vention set out in the Schedule to the Order entitled the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Belgium) Order 1967, a draft of which was laid before your House in the last session of Parliament, an Order may be made in the form of that draft.

I will comply with your request.

INCOME TAX

The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as follows:

I have received your Address praying that on the ratification by the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands of the Convention set out in the Schedule to the Order entitled the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Netherlands) Order 1967 a draft of which was laid before your House, an Order may be made in the form of that draft.

I will comply with your request.

INCOME TAX

The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as follows:

I have received your Address praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (Malaysia) Order 1967 be made in the form of the draft laid before your House.

I will comply with your request.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL [Lords]

Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Duchy of Lancaster, signified,—

Bill read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

PETITION

Public Order Ordinance, Hong Kong

Mr. Rankin: Mr. Speaker, I beg to present to this honourable House the humble Petition of the Reform Club of Hong Kong. Your Petitioner comprises over 30,000 full and associated members of all walks of life in Hong Kong and is one of the biggest associations in Hong Kong.
Your Petitioner is most disturbed by the Public Order Ordinance which was passed by the Legislative Council on 15th November, 1967, inter alia, for the reasons set out below.
The Reform Club welcomes action by Government to better the laws of Hong Kong for the greater safety of the people, but regrets that the Public Order Bill 1967 will not have the intended result. The wording of the Bill largely follows emergency laws of previous African colonies; it embodies some Emergency Regulations recently enforced in Hong Kong which the Governor stated would be repealed as possible, and it makes every peace-loving resident of Hong Kong a potential criminal.
The Bill does not seem to have been translated into Chinese, nor has the Act, but the Reform Club repeats that it urges Chinese to be made an official language. The situation in Hong Kong is in no way comparable to that in Kenya before independence, and the Reform Club does not consider legislation appropriate to Kenya either necessary or suitable for Hong Kong.
Your Petitioner then proceeds to recite numerous potent criticisms of the new Act and to urge that a definite distinction be made between regulations designed to meet an emergency and the ordinary law of the land applicable in normal times.
In conclusion, your Petitioner prays, for all these reasons, that you will advise Her Majesty the Queen to disallow this present Public Order Ordinance.
And Your Petitioner, as in duty bound, will ever pray.

To lie upon the Table.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL

Coal Mines (Employees)

Mr. David Griffiths: asked the Minister of Power what was the number of men and boys employed underground each year from 1963 to the most recent date, and the number of persons engaged in an official capacity from area general managers down to deputies and shotfirers.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power (Mr. Reginald Freeson): With permission I will circulate the figures in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Griffiths: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is great indignation about the number of miners being lost to the industry, while at the same time there is an overwhelming preponderance of area general managers? Miners in the coalfields are disturbed about this, and I hope that the figures given by my hon. Friend will be satisfactory. I doubt it.

Mr. Freeson: I think my hon. Friend will find that the figures show a drop in the number of persons to whom he has referred, as well as underground workers. The figures range from 34,900 in 1963, to 29,700 early this year, but further details will appear.

The following is the information:



Men and boys employed under ground at N.C.B. mines excluding overmen deputies and shotfirers)
Persons engaged in an official capacity from area general managers down to and including shotfirers


1963 End December
373,000
34,900


1964 End December
354,000
33,600


1965 End December
324,000
31,700


1966 End December
299,000
29,900


1967 End March
295,000
29,700

Mineral Rights (Compensation Payments)

Mr. David Griffiths: asked the Minister of Power what has been the total amount paid to date to the former coal owners for the mineral rights of the various coalfields.

Mr. Freeson: The total amount paid in respect of the mineral rights transferred to the Coal Commission under the Coal Act, 1938, was about £68½ million. This includes interest less Income Tax from 1st July, 1942, the vesting date, until the compensation was fully satisfied.

Mr. Griffiths: This is another instance of there being no question of public indignation about the amount of compensation for mineral rights which has been given to these people.

Industry (Coke Supplies)

Dr. David Kerr: asked the Minister of Power what representations he has received concerning the guaranteed supply of coke for industrial use during the next five years; and what reply he has sent.

Mr. Freeson: Following representations from the trade, the Department have had discussions with the London and Counties Coke Distributors' Association about facilities in the London area for handling the additional supplies of hard coke that will be needed as supplies of gas coke decline. We are examining the position further with the producers and distributors.

Dr. Kerr: I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful reply. Is he aware that the problem is by no means confined to London and the Home Counties, and that the question will be of great urgency, particularly during this forthcoming winter, when Midlands industry particularly will face shortages of absolutely essential coke fuel?

Mr. Freeson: I was asked whether any representations had been received by the Department and answered that we have not had representations from the source referred to. In the first instance, such complaints and queries should go to the board, but, if there is a general policy issue here, no doubt, if my hon. Friend or others write to us, we will look into it.

Coal Mining Industry

Sir C. Osborne: asked the Minister of Power if he will make a statement on his talks with the Chairman of the National Coal Board regarding the loss of 300,000 jobs in the coal mines, and how far devaluation has affected the coal mining industry.

The Minister of Power (Mr. Richard Marsh): I would refer the hon. Member to the replies which I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Hudders-field, West (Mr. Lomas) on 20th November and to my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda, East (Mr. G. Elfed Davies) on 5th December.—[Vol. 754, c. 267 and Vol. 755, c. 256.]

Sir C. Osborne: While I do not remember those Answers, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman why Lord Robens

should not be given a free hand for two years to see if he can really produce coal as cheaply as imported oil and so save these 300,000 jobs which the miners will lose?

Mr. Marsh: The important point to get quite clear here about the figure for mining manpower run-down by 1980 is that there are no figures which can be justified with any reasonable argument. Having said that, I wish to make it clear that, from the point of view of flexibility to enable the coal mining industry to take advantage of increases in productivity, this is allowed for in the White Paper. If the coal mining industry does better and better in future, as it has done in the past, nobody will be happier than the Minister of Power of the day.

Mr. Swain: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in November, 1965, the then Minister of Power said that if coal output fell to below 170 million tons a year this would have a serious effect on the nation's balance of payments? Has my right hon. Friend decided what further serious effect on the balance of payments devaluation will have in terms of the import of further stocks of oil?

Mr. Marsh: I was trying to make this point earlier. Preliminary calculations show that the effect of devaluation on oil prices has meant an increase in the price of oil by an amount which is well within the margin taken into account in the second case in the Appendix to the White Paper, and not sufficiently large to distort the economic balance of payments advantages.

Oral Answers to Questions — GAS

North Sea Gas

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: asked the Minister of Power if agreement has been reached on the price of North Sea gas; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Minister of Power what reply he has given to the request made by companies engaged in the North Sea gas project for increased prices consequent on devaluation.

Mr. Marsh: No agreement has yet been reached on the price of North Sea gas.

Mr. Roberts: Would not my right hon. Friend agree, however, that if the price charged is in excess of 2d. per therm it will make it uneconomic for many industrial and chemical purposes? Will he at this stage say that under no circumstances will he accept a price in excess of that figure?

Mr. Marsh: If my hon. Friend really expected a full answer to that question, all I can say is that he has an enviable level of optimism. I think that this is a very complex subject, rather more complicated than my hon. Friend has presented it. Clearly there will be no purpose in purchasing North Sea gas at a price at which it is not viable.

Mrs. Thatcher: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether a revised application has been received consequent on devaluation?

Mr. Marsh: Not yet. The companies are reworking their calculations, and we are in fact reworking ours.

Mr. Neal: Will my right hon. Friend assure the House that this argument about prices is not depriving consumers of early participation in the use of North Sea gas?

Mr. Marsh: My hon. Friend has raised a very important point. There is no evidence that this is holding up supplies or development. Gas is coming ashore, and development is continuing, but clearly both sides are faced with a new situation in which they have to re-do some of their calculations.

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: asked the Minister of Power if he is satisfied that the cost to the developers of extracting North Sea gas was more than 1½d. a therm, spreading exploration and development costs over a 20 year period and a 10 year period, respectively; and what estimates he has of these costs.

Mr. Marsh: As I explained to my hon. Friend on 4th July, cost estimates made by my Department are confidential. —[Vol. 749, c. 205.]

Mr. Roberts: But would not my right hon. Friend agree with me that as the developers must know these figures already, there is nothing to hide, and surely the general public who have to pay the piper are entitled to know what it costs the companies to develop this gas?

Mr. Marsh: I think the companies will feel that there is a great deal to conceal from each other. The cost details are commercial secrets. They are given to the Department in the strictest confidence, and the companies would not want one another to know some of the details.
The other point which my hon. Friend must get clear is that some of these costs have not yet been incurred. The costs will be in respect of fields which have not been found, much less developed.

Prices

Mr. G. Campbell: asked the Minister of Power what is his estimate of the increase in costs to the Scottish Gas Board of devaluation and the accompanying measures.

Mrs. Reníe Short: asked the Minister of Power what effect the Government's decision to devalue will have on development in the West Midlands Gas Board area; and what estimate he has made of the effect on prices to be charged to consumers.

Mr. Lane: asked the Minister of Power by what further percentage he expects gas prices to rise as a result of devaluation.

Mr. Freeson: Gas prices are at present being considered by the National Board for Prices and Incomes, which will no doubt take into account the effects of devaluation on the Boards' costs, along with all other factors. I do not expect devaluation to have any significant effect on the course of development in the West Midlands Gas Board area.

Mr. Campbell: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the price of gas in Scotland is already too high compared with the average in the rest of the country? Will he examine ways of ensuring that it is not increased?

Mr. Freeson: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that this question is now with the N.B.P.I. and that we must await its report.

Mrs. Short: Is my hon. Friend aware that, the day after devaluation was announced, a spokesman of the West Midlands Gas Board said that prices would probably go up and development would have to be cut back, and that,


during October, the increase in the cost of living was largely due to the increase in coal and electricity prices? Does he not think that he is putting the wrong burdens on the wrong people for the wrong reasons?

Mr. Freeson: I am not sure what the point was of the last part of that Question. The rest of it was a statement, of which one takes notice. This matter is now with the Prices and Incomes Board and we must await its report before reaching a decision.

Mr. Peyton: What on earth does the hon. Gentleman think the Prices and Incomes Board knows about this matter? Why not deal with it in his own Department rather than put upon the very doubtful Olympian judgment of the Prices and Incomes Board responsibilities for things about which it knows nothing?

Mr. Freeson: I take note of the jovial remarks of the hon. Gentleman about the work, the nature and the quality of the National Board for Prices and Incomes.

Mr. Dempsey: asked the Minister of Power if he has now made a study of the report of the National Board for Prices and Incomes regarding high gas prices in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Freeson: The question of gas prices in Scotland, as elsewhere was referred to the National Board for Prices and Incomes on 3rd October. The Board has not yet reported.

Mr. Dempsey: Is my hon. Friend aware that this indefinite delay could have been avoided by using a common denominator which would indicate that prices are higher in Scotland? Is he aware that consumers are now handing back gas heating appliances because of high cost? Will he do his utmost to speed up this investigation?

Mr. Freeson: I think it was right that all the price proposals should have been referred to the Board and that no exceptions should be made. On the second point my hon. Friend is under a misapprehension. My last information was that there was a considerable expansion in gas domestic heating going on in Scotland today.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: Is the Parliamentary Secretary not aware that he should stop hiding behind the Prices and Incomes Board and the Minister should accept the decision as his? Does he know that the price of gas in Scotland is already 24 per cent, above the national average and that a general increase is not justified?

Mr. Freeson: Hon. Members cannot have it both ways. There have been queries about not having the electricity prices referred to the N.B.P.I. and now we are criticised for having gas price increases referred to the Board.

Industry (Gas Supplies)

Dr. David Kerr: asked the Minister of Power what proposals he has for ensuring a guaranteed supply of gas of consistent quality to industry during the next five years.

Mr. Freeson: The gas boards have a statutory duty to maintain supplies of gas and their plans are framed accordingly. Quality standards are prescribed by Regulations, and the Department's gas examiners make periodic tests to ensure that they are complied with.

Dr. Kerr: None the less, is my hon. Friend not aware that certain industries in the Midlands are complaining that the variations in the quality of the gas which is supplied to them is hazarding some of their processes? What conversations are being undertaken between industry and the gas boards in the Midlands on this subject?

Mr. Freeson: If an industry or group of industries and companies has complaints about the service which it is receiving it must raise the complaints with the Board concerned.

Mr. Emery: Would the hon. Gentleman say that, to obtain this consistency and quality, there is a need for some of the greatest investment in the gas industry in the next five years? Will he assure the House that this will now be available, even in the present economic restrictions?

Mr. Freeson: There are no proposals to prevent investment on the introduction of natural gas and the further modernisation of the industry, whatever adjustments are being made or considered under the heading of public expenditure.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF POWER

Steel Prices

Mr. Willey: asked the Minister of Power whether he will make a further statement on the question of steel prices for the shipbuilding industry.

Mr. Marsh: The British Steel Corporation is still discussing the price of shipbuilding steel with the shipbuilders, and I hope it will be possible to reach an agreement to the advantage of both industries.

Mr. Willey: I am obliged to my right hon. Friend. Will he see that the importance of steel prices to the shipbuilding industry is borne in mind, otherwise this industry will be sorely prejudiced if its main competitors have the advantage of £5 to £6 a ton?

Mr. Marsh: I think that devaluation will help the shipbuilding industry. The Corporation, in its own interests, is very much concerned to do what it can to work with the shipbuilding industry in their mutual interest.

Mr. Emery: As far as the shipbuilding industry in concerned—in fact this applies to all the steel-consuming industries— where there has been a major increase in price since devaluation, sometimes as much as 16·6 per cent, on present prices, do the Government intend to refer this to the Prices and Incomes Board?

Mr. Marsh: So far there has been no increase in the price of shipbuilding steel. If, at some time, the Corporation came forward with an application for an increase in price, it would be judged on its merits as to how big it was.

Mr. Ridley: asked the Minister of Power by what percentage he estimates that steel prices will rise as a result of devaluation.

Mr. James Hamilton: asked the Minister of Power what application he has received regarding an increase in the price of steel; and, in view of the damage such an increase would do to industry and exports, if he will refuse his approval to the application.

Mr. Marsh: The British Steel Corporation is still considering how far it can absorb the increase in costs due to de-

valuation bearing in mind also the advantages it hopes to gain.

Mr. Ridley: But why does not the Minister tell us by how much the price of steel will rise? Will he give an undertaking that he will not allow the British Steel Corporation to drift into deficit when it is clearly part of the policy of devaluation that steel prices should rise if they have to?

Mr. Marsh: As I have already explained, the Corporation has put no proposals to me for a major increase in prices. If it did, that application would be treated in the same way as any other. As to the industry drifting, one has only to consider its record in the last year or two to realise that this is its only hope of stopping drifting.

Mr. Hamilton: My right hon. Friend is reported in the Press as saying that the price will increase by 16 per cent. If it does increase, will it be the same for the whole country? Can he assure us that Scotland will be considered very much in this?

Mr. Marsh: As hon. Gentlemen on both sides know, the question of steel prices is a very complex issue affecting the problems of the market generally. What the Corporation is doing is working out how best to change its pricing policy in the light of devaluation. If that involved any increase of any note, the necessary application would be treated in the same way as any other.

Sir A. V. Harvey: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many other industries are complex yet have already worked out their prices, including the motor car industry where exports are a main consideration? Will he note that industry's example and get something done quickly?

Mr. Marsh: Some sections of the motor car industry took one path, and some took a different path. With an industry as big as the Steel Corporation, the important thing is to get the answer right.

Indigenous Fuel

Mr. Eadie: asked the Minister of Power (1) what alteration he estimates will occur in the demands for indigenous fuels as a result of devaluation;

(2) what consultations his Department has had with indigenous fuel industries


as a consequence of devaluation; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Biffen: asked the Minister of Power what estimate he has made of the consequences for indigenous sources of power of the recent devaluation of sterling.

Mr. Cronin: asked the Minister of Power (1) what changes he estimates will occur in the demand for indigenous fuels as a result of devaluation;

(2) what consultations his Department has had with indigenous fuel industries as a consequence of devaluation; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Marsh: As I said in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda, East (Mr. Elfed Davies) on 5th December, the main effects of devaluation will be to reduce slightly oil's competitive advantage over coal in the home market and to make British coal cheaper in export markets. I do not expect the White Paper conclusions about the likely future pattern of demand for the various fuels to be more than marginally affected.— [Vol. 754, c. 438.]

Mr. Eadie: Would my right hon. Friend agree that coal is no burden on our balance of payments? Is he aware that several hundred miners at Michael Colliery have been given notice? Would not my right hon. Friend help the balance of payments problem by issuing instructions to reopen Michael Colliery? Does not he believe that an increase of 17 per cent, in the amount of oil imported must make a difference to the use of indigenous fuel?

Mr. Marsh: The increase is not as large as that. With regard to oil imports, it seems at the moment that the effect of devaluation will be less than that, with the increased fuel tax in the fuel policy White Paper.
Michael Colliery is a separate question, but I think that to reopen what is now virtually a new coalfield at a cost of about £5 million must, as it has done, cause the National Coal Board to think.

Mr. Biffen: Has not the right hon. Gentleman given a most extraordinarily imprecise Answer as a member of a Government who are supposed to be committed to central economic planning?

Does not that Answer show that devaluation was unexpected and unplanned?

Mr. Marsh: Nothing is ever unexpected. Obviously, an Answer which informs the House that we are in the process of working out the effect of this on the White Paper which has only recently been printed is obviously bound to be somewhat indecisive. It becomes decisive only when we know the calculations. At the moment, as I said, it looks as if they will have only a marginal effect.

Mr. Cronin: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that there is no further substantial increase in the import of oil? Having regard to the enormous sums spent every year by this country on imported oil, will he bear in mind that, if it were not for the large increase of oil imports permitted by the last Conservative Government, there would be no balance of payments crisis this year?

Mr. Marsh: In a modern industrial economy, it is rather difficult to prevent oil imports and, under the policy of the White Paper both the rate of increase in oil consumption will be much lower than in the past and the amount of oil as a proportion of the power economy will be much less than in most other countries.

Mrs. Thatcher: Will the right hon. Gentleman not agree that oil's competitive advantages are likely to be reduced only if the price of oil rises to meet increased costs? Is it his policy to allow the price to rise?

Mr. Marsh: I am not sure what the hon. Lady has in mind. The cost of oil would have to rise considerably before it cast doubts on the White Paper figures.

Oil Prices

Mr. John Smith: asked the Minister of Power what is expected to be the percentage increase in oil prices due to devaluation; and by how much he expects this will increase the price of a gallon of petrol.

Mr. Marsh: I have not yet completed my examination of the effects of devaluation on oil prices.

Mr. Smith: How does the prospective increase—for increase there will be—in the price of a gallon of petrol square with the Prime Minister's statement of


19th November that the pound in one's pocket or purse has not been devalued?

Mr. Marsh: I think that the hon. Gentleman is trying too hard. The point is, as I explained at the beginning, that we have not yet agreed on an increase in price for oil. Neither have we agreed on what is the effect of devaluation. I think, therefore, that the hon. Gentleman should have kept that supplementary question for a future date when I may be able to give him some of the reasons.

Mr. Ridley: As the point of devaluation is to increase the prices of imported raw materials, will the right hon. Gentleman give an undertaking that he will not hold them down at the expense of the oil companies' profits for political reasons?

Mr. Marsh: I recognise that the hon. Gentleman's withers are wrung at the prospect of the oil companies' own problems. However, there is a national problem as well, and my responsibility is to look after that.

Gas and Electricity Boards (Advertising)

Sir J. Langford-Holt: asked the Minister of Power, in view of the fact that the gas and electricity boards advertise on television, cinema screens and in newspapers and periodicals and offer free gifts to customers with a view to securing new consumers at the expense of each other and as this cost is eventually passed on to the consumers, whether he will issue a general direction to gas and electricity boards that they should cease this practice.

Mr. Freeson: No, Sir.

Sir J. Langford-Holt: Is it not quite ludicrous that two public bodies like these should be encouraging customers to do precisely what the Chancellor of the Exchequer does not want them to do and which, we understand, he will be having to introduce legislation in the next Budget to prevent them from doing, and using public money to do it?

Mr. Freeson: We have had this Question often before—[Interruption.]—but this time it is more loaded than previously. It must be borne in mind that these industries, whatever views there may be about different kinds of advertising, spend

less than 0·5 per cent, of their combined turnover on advertising, which is a much smaller percentage than that applicable to industry at large. As for the general position of publicity and promotion, we are now looking into this matter.

Mr. Palmer: Would my hon. Friend agree that publicly-owned commercial undertakings are expected to compete in the market with every other form of consumer demand? Will he do nothing to combat the normal and proper advertising methods of these publicly-owned commercial undertakings?

Mr. Freeson: My hon. Friend's question gives me an opportunity to make it clear that it is incorrect economically to speak of these industries just competing with each other. They are, in fact, competing with other forms of consumption; and, therefore, a certain amount of advertising is inevitable and right.

Petrol Coupons

Mr. Lubbock: asked the Minister of Power (1) how many books of petrol coupons he instructed to be printed as a result of the Middle East War; how many have actually been printed and how many remain on order; if he will state the total cost and the cost per book; and why coupons are continuing to be printed in spite of the fact that the crisis is over;

(2) what is the normal level of stocks of petrol coupons kept in case of an emergency.

Mr. Marsh: Fifteen million basic ration books and 26 million coupons were ordered as a result of the Middle East war; 9 million books and all the coupons have been printed. Printing of a further 6 million books continues as a precaution against a future emergency. The books cost about l½d. each.

Mr. Lubbock: Did the right hon. Gentleman go out to tender for this very large order, or did he place the order with one company at a very inflated price? Is it not a monstrous waste of money to continue printing these books now that the emergency is over?

Mr. Marsh: No, Sir. To answer the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question about the process, these sorts of documents can be printed by only a limited


number of printers. I understand that there is more than one printing firm involved in carrying out the work. This is a matter of judgment. The hon. Gentleman thinks that it is a waste of time.

Mr. Lubbock: I do.

Mr. Marsh: He is entitled to his view, but if he is serious in his question, I suggest that it would be more profitable for all concerned if he gave me a chance to answer it. One of the things we discovered when the crisis began was that the biggest bottleneck in taking very quick action was the lack of books and coupons. I believe that we should ensure that we have the preparations made, for this would enable us to have a simplified rationing scheme, which would save us about £750,000 in about six months.

Fuels (Annual Expenditure)

Sir C. Osborne: asked the Minister of Power how much of the £3,000 million a year spent on fuel is for domestic and industrial purposes, respectively; and approximately how much in each group is spent on the different fuels.

Mr. Marsh: Excluding purchases of fuels for transport, purchases by domestic consumers accounted for about one third, and by industry one quarter, of the estimated £3,500 million annual expenditure on all forms of fuel; in both cases about 45 per cent, being on electricity and 30 per cent, on solid fuel. Purchases of gas by domestic consumers accounted for 20 per cent, and by industry 5 per cent., and of oil 5 per cent, and 20 per cent, respectively.

Sir C. Osborne: Do those figures mean that any increase in the cost of fuel will fall proportionately more on the domestic consumer than on industry? If so, will it not be a more onerous charge on the poorer section of the nation than on industry? Should not this be looked into?

Mr. Marsh: It is rather more difficult than that. One of the things we have been seeking to do in the last electricity increases has been to begin to redress the balance in favour of industry in relation to industrial costs, and fuel costs, as a part of the industrial costs, are a

very large fraction. This means that some of the extra cost must be diverted to the domestic consumer.

Power Stations (Capital Investment)

Mr. Ogden: asked the Minister of Power what estimate he has made of the effect of the Government's decision to reduce capital investment by the nationalised industries will have on proposals for nuclear powered electricity generating stations.

Mr. McGuire: asked the Minister of Power what effect the proposed reductions in capital spending by the nationalised industries will have on the construction of nuclear power stations.

Mr. Marsh: Final decisions have not yet been taken, but the effect will probably be to defer the start of one power station.

Mr. McGuire: In view of the lower capital cost involved in building conventional power stations, will my right hon. Friend look again at the high cost which will be involved with devaluation in building nuclear power stations? Surely this is a further reason for a review of the White Paper?

Mr. Marsh: I am sure my hon. Friend will ensure that that point does not escape my mind in the next few weeks. We have this in mind, but a power station is built to last for a long time—30 years.

Mr. Ridley: When will the right hon. Gentleman give the House the details of the cut-backs in investment programmes of the nationalised fuel industries as a result of the measures announced last week?

Mr. Marsh: As soon as I can.

White Paper on Fuel Policy

Mr. Ogden: asked the Minister of Power what action he has taken to make the intentions of the Government White Paper on Fuel Policy known to those employed in the British coal industry; and what further action he intends to take.

Mr. Marsh: I have arranged for copies of the pamphlet "Fuel for the Future"


to be made available at collieries and I have also sent a personal message to miners outlining what the Government were proposing to do for the coal industry and the miners. I intend to visit various parts of the country where there is a particular interest in this subject.

Mr. Ogden: Will my right hon. Friend accept an invitation to visit the Lancashire coalfield, where we will give him not only a warm but an understanding welcome?

Mr. Marsh: Perhaps I may seek an opportunity to discuss with my hon. Friend exactly what he meant by "warm".

Oral Answers to Questions — ELECTRICITY

Seaton Carew (Power Station)

Mr. Willey: asked the Minister of Power whether a decision has yet been taken on the proposed Seaton Carew power station.

Mr. Marsh: No, Sir.

Mr. Willey: Can my right hon. Friend say whether he will be able to make a statement before the end of the year? Is it a fact that the National Coal Board has offered a long-term contract at very much reduced prices? Can my right hon. Friend make a statement about the cost benefit analysis which has been made on this?

Mr. Marsh: I do not think that these discussions will take very much longer. Many of my hon. Friends wanted this job to be done properly to take into account all the various factors in this, and the National Coal Board's application will be one of them, though it is sometimes suggested that if there is coal at this price it would be useful to purchase it anyhow.

Mr. Leadbitter: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that this matter of considering the building of the power station has gone on for many months? The fact is that 2,000 jobs will be provided by constructing the power station, and it is therefore imperative that a decision be made which will mean that work can start within the first few weeks of the new year.

Mr. Marsh: My hon. Friend has highlighted a particular problem. He is in favour of a nuclear-powered station. Many of my hon. Friends favour a coal-fired power station. I shall do what I can as quickly as possible to reach a compromise between them.

Sir G. Nabarro: Will the right hon. Gentleman confide in the House of Commons about the comparative cost of a coal-fired station at Seaton Carew, and a nuclear-fired station? Does he not recall that many of us on both sides of the House believe that coal ought to be used at this new station, and not nuclear power?

Mr. Marsh: There is a strong view that this should be a coal-fired station. This controversy has gone on for a long time. As I understand it, hon. Members on both sides of the House want a proper cost benefit analysis done in relation to which is the best station to put there. It does not necessarily follow that if we do not have a nuclear-fired station at Seaton Carew we have a coal-fired station on that site. It might well be elsewhere.

Mr. Shinwell: In view of the importance of the Government reaching a decision on this matter, from the point of view of the Durham coalfield, and indeed for miners generally, may we have an assurance that before any decision is taken the House will be consulted? Is not this a matter which ought to be determined by the House before a final decision is taken?

Mr. Marsh: At the moment I see no reason why the House should not be informed of what the Government have in mind about this. The Government have no particular angle other than to get the best sort of station. This is an arguable matter. I see no reason why it should not be announced in the House.

Prices

Mr. Lane: asked the Minister of Power what will be the average percentage rise in the electricity bills of private consumers, arising out of the September 1967 price increases.

Mr. Ridley: asked the Minister of Power what will be the average percentage increase in electricity bills for farmers as a result of the recent increases in prices.

Mr. Freeson: Fourteen-and-a-half per cent, for private consumers and about 14 per cent, for farmers.

Mr. Lane: How strong a reassurance can the hon. Gentleman give to consumers that there will be no further increase in 1968 or 1969?

Mr. Freeson: I can give a general observation that we do not expect prices to rise for some time to come. One could not at this stage expect any more specific answer than that.

Mr. Ridley: On what basis is it decided whether industrial, domestic or farming consumers are to be hit hardest? Is it a question of which will bear the increase with the greatest fortitude, or is there some logic behind this madness?

Mr. Freeson: The lower increase for industrial consumers, which is the central point of the hon. Gentleman's query, partly reflects the relative cost of supply and the fact that they faced an increase in April last year when coal prices went up. It should be borne in mind in considering these price increases that, as compared with the general run of price increases of 89 per cent., since the industry was nationalised the rise in electricity prices has been only about 61 per cent.

Mr. Spriggs: Is my hon. Friend aware that pensioners and low wage earners are not able to afford the fixed minimum charges which the boards are now charging consumers? Is he further aware that one of my constituents has complained recently—[HON. MEMBERS: "Only one?"]—about being charged more than double the cost of the electricity consumed?

Mr. Freeson: It is difficult for me to comment on individual cases put forward in this fashion. There is machinery for these complaints—if there are grounds for complaint—to be taken up; in the first instance with the board concerned and, subsequently, with the appropriate consultative council.

Mr. Albert Roberts: Is it not possible to steady the price by bringing about increased efficiency in the gas industry?

Mr. Freeson: In terms of increased productivity it has experienced in the years since it was nationalised, this in-

dustry has nothing of which to be ashamed.

Mr. John Smith: asked the Minister of Power by what further percentage he expects electricity prices to rise as a result of devaluation.

Mr. Marsh: Devaluation will effect only those consumers whose tariffs contain a fuel price adjustment clause. No revision of tariffs is contemplated.

Mr. Smith: Would not it help to keep electricity prices down if we abandoned the unfair policy of making today's consumers, out of today's charges, pay for future development for the benefit of future consumers?

Mr. Marsh: That is a rather different question from the one on the Order Paper. I am afraid that one of the sorrows which I have discovered in the office which I hold is that today's consumers are almost bound to pay, in one way or another, for future developments.

Mr. Edward M. Taylor: asked the Minister of Power what is the average percentage increase for industrial consumers resulting from the rise in electricity charges of September, 1967.

Mr. Freeson: Six per cent., but the effect of the higher fuel costs had already been passed on to some industrial consumers.

Mr. Taylor: Can the Parliamentary Secretary give any guidance about the future trend of electricity prices over, say, the next 18 months? Would he agree that it is hopeless to try to restrain these prices when costs, under the Government's direct and indirect control, keep soaring?

Mr. Freeson: I indicated, in answer to earlier Questions, that we do not expect electricity prices to increase again for some time to come.

Research

Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine: asked the Minister of Power what representations he has made to the Electricity Council regarding the level of its appropriation for research.

Mr. Freeson: None, Sir.

Mr. Irvine: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that out of the total revenue of


£1,141·4 million, only £7·6 million is spent on research and that this compares with a business like I.C.I., which, out of total revenue of £496½2 million, spends £30 million on research? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware—[HON. MEMBERS: "Too long."]—that this represents 0·66 per cent, spent on research compared with 6·0 per cent, respectively? Is he also aware—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, no."] —that about £17 million is spent on re pairs to typewriters and so on, compared with only £7½6 million on—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Questions must be reasonably brief.

Mr. Freeson: I wish to deal with this subject in a rather more serious vein than the content of the hon. Gentleman's supplemnetary question. The position is that the amount spent on research by the industry totals about £10·6 million today compared with £2·2 million in 1959–60. That is a considerable increase, and about £270,000 in the current programme is being spent on research into underground cabling alone.

Electricity Boards (Hire-Purchase Terms)

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: asked the Minister of Power whether he will give a general direction to electricity boards to bring their hire-purchase terms into line financially with terms offered by free enterprise electrical contractors.

Mr. Freeson: Private enterprise rates vary considerably. I have no evidence that rates charged by electricity boards are either excessive or uneconomic.

Mr. Lewis: Does the Minister not agree that the electricity boards are able to provide advantageous rates because they can raise money more easily from the Government? At this time will he see that this kind of advantage which they secure over private enterprise is not permitted?

Mr. Freeson: Hon. Members opposite should try to hide their prejudices a little more in regard to the nationalised industries. There is nothing wrong with the commercial practice of the boards in this respect and they are making a good profit out of it. Taking all the 12 area boards together, a profit of something like £2·7

million was made out of this side of then-business. It is something which should be encouraged.

Oral Answers to Questions — AUSTRALIA (SUPPLY OF ARMS)

Viscount Lambton: asked the Prime Minister what requests he has had from the Prime Minister of Australia to supply armaments to Australia; and what reply he has given.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): None, Sir.

Viscount Lambton: Will the Prime Minister say whether any requests have been made for nuclear armaments of any sort by the Australian Government in view of the vacuum we are creating in the Far East?

The Prime Minister: No such requests have been received from the Australian Government. I cannot think it conceivable that there would be, and if there were they would be refused.

Oral Answers to Questions — CIVIL SERVICE

Mr. Onslow: asked the Prime Minister what steps he takes to keep himself informed of increases in the size and cost of the Civil Service.

The Prime Minister: I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer I gave to a similar Question by him on 20th December, 1966.—[Vol. 738, c. 1184.]

Mr. Onslow: Will the Prime Minister confirm that he is aware of—indeed, responsible for—the increase of 52,000 in the non-industrial Civil Service since October, 1964, an increase in annual wages and salaries of over £115 million? If there are to be cuts, is not this the place to begin?

The Prime Minister: I am certainly aware of the figures given to the House yesterday, but I remind the hon. Member that under the last Conservative Government the Civil Service increased by 36,000.

Mr. Molloy: Is my right hon. Friend aware that very many hon. Members opposite are constantly pressing for increases in a variety of public services


and that they crib when the personnel have to be found to fill those jobs?

The Prime Minister: Yes. The point had not escaped me. I know that hon. Members in all parts of the House will be pleased that one of the biggest increases is in the social services, an increase of 7,200.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRICES, RENTS AND MORTGAGE INTEREST RATES

Mr. Winnick: asked the Prime Minister which Ministers are responsible for keeping a check on increases in prices, rents and mortgage interest rates, arising from devaluation; and if he will make a statement.

The Prime Minister: For prices, the Minister with responsibility for the industry or service concerned, for rents, my right hon. Friends the Minister of Housing and Local Government and the Secretaries of State for Scotland and Wales, and for mortgage interest rates, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. In addition, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs has a co-ordinating function.

Mr. Winnick: Is the Prime Minister aware that while there is a tremendous amount of good will to get Britain out of her economic troubles, there is a great deal of resentment at unjustified price increases? What action do the Government propose to take over price increases which have simply nothing to do with devaluation but with a desire to make more profits?

The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs told the House last week what discussions we are having industry by industry on this problem. The whole House, I am certain, will agree that price increases not directly attributable to increased import costs following devaluation are totally unjustified.

Mr. Tom Boardman: Does the Prime Minister agree with the statement made by the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs to the effect that there was bound to be a cut in the standard of living of British people in the next 12 months— the statement made on 9th December?

The Prime Minister: I agree with the statement which was made last Saturday. As the Government have made clear, hopes of a substantial rise in standards of living in the following year depend on the efforts of all of us to get the imports-exports balance right early next year.

Mr. Gardner: Has my right hon. Friend seen Motion No. 133? In view of the fact that a great many people are making unjustified price increases and blaming this on to devaluation, will the Prime Minister take a simple measure of putting the onus of justifying those increases on to those who make them?

The Prime Minister: I have seen the Motion on the Order Paper. We are watching very carefully some of these quite unjustified price rises, and my right hon. Friends are in discussion with the industries concerned.

Mr. Maudling: Is it not part of Government policy that prices should rise faster than wages in order to choke off imports and divert expenditure from home consumption to exports?

The Prime Minister: It is Government policy that where increased costs—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."]—I am trying to answer the question so that even hon. Members opposite can understand it. Where there are increased costs due to devaluation it is right that prices should rise in those cases, but not in other cases. As the right hon. Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) said, this does account for part of the diversion of resources. He is quite right about that. In regard to wages, we feel that the maximum restraint is needed. How far earnings will go up as a result of increased opportunities for production is another matter.

Mr. Whitaker: Why should not employers' associations such as the C.B.I. vet price increases in the same way as the T.U.C. is vetting wage increases?

The Prime Minister: We are having discussions with the C.B.I. So far, I believe that the discussions have been reasonably constructive, but we shall need to have discussions with individual trade associations in individual industries.

Mr. Maudling: Do I take it that the Prime Minister's answer to my earlier question was "Yes"?

The Prime Minister: I have forgotten what the question was now.

Mr. Maudling: My question was—is it not part of the Government's policy that prices should rise faster than wages in order to choke off imports and divert resources to exports?

The Prime Minister: Taking prices as a whole and the year as a whole, the answer is "No". As regards prices attributable to import costs, it is inevitable that they will rise.

Oral Answers to Questions — ECONOMIC DEPARTMENTS (CO-ORDINATION)

Mr. Marten: asked the Prime Minister what steps he is taking to improve co-ordination between Economic Departments since devaluation.

The Prime Minister: The work of these Departments is already closely and effectively co-ordinated, Sir.

Mr. Marten: In view of the need to tell the people the harsh truth about devaluation, and in the light of the Prime Minister's television broadcast, would it not be helpful to the country if he had a special adviser specifically to advise him on telling the facts about devaluation more forthrightly and more frankly?

The Prime Minister: I did, despite the attempt of hon. Members opposite to create a legend by taking one sentence out of context, in that broadcast state plainly that prices would have to rise. I then went on to say that it would be unjustifiable to raise prices which were not caused by devaluation.

Oral Answers to Questions — U.S.S.R. (TREATY OF FRIENDSHIP)

Mr. Blaker: asked the Prime Minister what progress has been achieved towards the conclusion of the Treaty of friendship and peaceful co-operation between Great Britain and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics upon which he and Mr. Kosygin agreed in February, 1967.

The Prime Minister: We have put a number of ideas for the content of the Treaty to the Soviet Government, and await their comments, Sir.

Mr. Blaker: Bearing in mind the disregard by the Soviet Government of accepted standards of international behaviour in the case of Mr. Gerald Brooke, does the Prime Minister think that there would be much substance in such a Treaty if it were concluded?

The Prime Minister: We continue to press the case of Mr. Brooke. I agree with the hon. Gentleman in his strictures on the Soviet Government in this matter. I think, for all that, that it would be a mistake not to press on with, and we are pressing on with, the Treaty of friendship with the Soviet Union and to try to get other means of agreement with the Soviet Union. If this can be done, perhaps it will help even in this one case where we believe that the behaviour of the Russians has been unacceptable.

Mr. Mendelson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the announcement when Mr. Kosygin was in London that such a Treaty was being discussed received widespread support throughout this country? Will he take an opportunity after his visit to the United States to have another meeting with Mr. Kosygin so that the Treaty can be brought forward to a successful conclusion?

The Prime Minister: I cannot at this stage say exactly when my visit to the Soviet Union will be, but we are pressing on with the Treaty of friendship. We have sent our draft. We are waiting for the Soviet Union's comments. The Soviet Ambassador told me as recently as yesterday that we may expect to get his country's comments very quickly.

Sir C. Osbome: Despite the very unhappy temporary differences, which no one under-estimates, between the Soviet Union and ourselves, will the Prime Minister press on with the long-term policy of increased friendship and trade with the Soviets, as both are essential to the survival of this country?

The Prime Minister: Yes. I thank the hon. Gentleman. As I have already said to the House, I think that the recent visit by a very authoritative group of British industrialists to follow up the technological initiative was a very helpful step in this direction.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Does my right hon. Friend recollect that the spokesman on


foreign affairs for the Opposition made a television speech in Moscow six years ago in which he said that we must not only co-exist with the Soviet Union but we must co-operate with the Soviet Union? Is it not time that these negotiations were speeded up, because the British people want to see friendship with the Soviet Union?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I entirely agree with the sentiments expressed by the then Foreign Secretary, I think it was. This was what we have sought to do on my own two visits to Moscow and on Mr. Kosygin's visit to this country. The Treaty of friendship is not being held up at the moment by us. We hope it will not be delayed much longer.

Oral Answers to Questions — PORTS (NATIONALISATION)

Mr. Ian Lloyd: asked the Prime Minister what consultations he had with the Confederation of British Industry, the Shipper's Council, the Chamber of Shipping and other user interests, before making his statement on the nationalisation of ports.

The Prime Minister: There was no new statement of policy in what I said on this issue at the Port Industries Conference last month, Sir. The policy was announced in a White Paper (Cmnd. 3057) nearly seventeen months ago. As to consultation, my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport has been discussing details with those concerned since July.

Mr. Lloyd: Why is the Prime Minister apparently so unaware of the almost universal hostility to these proposals? If he claims otherwise, why does he treat with such obdurate indifference those upon whose co-operation and investment confidence the modernisation of our port system depends? Or is he absolutely determined to go down in the history books as the disc jockey of catastrophe?

The Prime Minister: I am not unaware—indeed, this is a result of my right hon. Friend's consultation—of the views of the industries concerned. It does not follow, however, that we have to be told by the industries concerned what the position is and what needs to hi done. Too many people in the port

industry have been far too complacent for far too long about the state of the ports.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that there are many people engaged in the port industry who welcome this decision to nationalise the ports, and that if the users to which the Question refers had put in the necessary capital, had treated the men with a degree of humanity and had tried to get rid of some of the distrust and hostility that have existed over the last 100 years, the ports would be a much more efficient and happy place in which to work?

The Prime Minister: I would not be able to comment on all those points, though I have seen recent expressions of some of the matters referred to in the supplementary question on Merseyside during the period of that strike. As the House is voting very large sums for this overdue reorganisation and modernisation of the ports, I think that it is necessary to have a much more direct form of control over how. that money is spent.

Mr. Maudling: In the course of the consultations to which the Prime Minister referred, have any users welcomed nationalisation?

The Prime Minister: The particular users mentioned in the Question have not. As I have said, others have, particularly on the trade union side. As I have said, and as the right hon. Gentleman will know, there has been too much complacency in the ports and we need to modernise quickly. This is the right way to do it.

Mr. Ogden: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the lessons of the last months is that there should be the utmost consultation between workers in the ports and the Government before legislation and that afterwards the intentions of the legislation should be fully reported to those employed in the ports?

The Prime Minister: Yes. These consultations are going on with that end in view. The conference where I made this particular speech was a very valuable operation in consultation between the employers, the users and the trade unions in the Merseyside area so far as dock modernisation is concerned.

Oral Answers to Questions — EUROPE (TECHNOLOGICAL CO-OPERATION)

Mr. Ian Lloyd: asked the Prime Minister to what extent his proposals for technological co-operation with Europe require the encouragement of arrangements involving a high degree of mobility of the personnel of British and European firms.

The Prime Minister: As I explained in my Guildhall speech, an important element in these proposals lies in the concept of the European company, which would involve a very considerable degree of interchange between British and European personnel.

Mr. Lloyd: I thank the Prime Minister for that mildly encouraging reply. Does not he agree that the unhampered movement of men, ideas and capital has been the fundamental condition for prosperity in Europe and North America for at least a century? Will he discourage his right hon. Friends from implying in their many speeches that in order to be pro-European or pro-British it is necessary to be anti-American?

The Prime Minister: I thought that the Question was about technological cooperation with Europe, which would envisage a very considerable movement both ways, not only of capital, as the hon. Gentleman says, but of ideas and of men and women of every kind of skill. Once this is achieved, as suggested in the Guildhall speech, it will help to make Europe as a whole much less dependent on American technology.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL PLAN

Mr. Blaker: asked the Prime Minister whether he is satisfied with the coordination between the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs with regard to the preparation of the revised National Plan; and if he will make a statement.

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir.

Mr. Blaker: Does that mean that there is to be another National Plan? Can the Prime Minister tell us when it will be published?

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman may be aware that we are dis-

cussing this question at the moment with the National Economic Development Council. We are now beginning work on this in the light of the new situation following devaluation. The first work will obviously have to be on the foreign balance, on exports and on import saving. From that, we hope to be able to move forward to the wider work for national planning. I cannot at this stage indicate to the hon. Gentleman when it is likely to be published.

Oral Answers to Questions — WINTER EMERGENCIES COMMITTEE

Sir J. Langford-Holt: asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the present state of the work of the Winter Emergencies Committee.

The Prime Minister: As the Answer to this Question is rather long, I will, with permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Sir J. Langford-Holt: Will the right hon. Gentleman oblige the House by giving us a summary of the results of the activities of this Committee?

The Prime Minister: No doubt the hon. Gentleman will study the Answer, but I might now give one point from it. The Winter Emergencies Committee, which was set up in November, 1965, was to ensure, in particular, that the fuel and power industries would be able in successive winters to meet the load put upon them, which was not the case then largely because of long delay in deliveries of equipment from various manufacturing firms.
The hon. Gentleman will be glad to know that the latest estimates are that the maximum output capacity of the electricity supply industry in an average cold spell this winter will exceed maximum demand by 12 per cent., compared with a calculated margin of only 2½ per cent, three years ago. A very similar position applies as regards gas for most of the gas boards, although there is no national grid for gas.

Mr. Peyton: Why does not the Prime Minister entrust the task of preparing a new National Plan to the Winter Emergencies Committee? He could then have it reviewed by the Prices and Incomes Board, and after that he could burn it.

The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman should not under-rate the achievement of this Committee and all working with it in having secured this margin of capacity of 12 per cent, compared with 2½ per cent, three years ago. It is a very satisfactory achievement, and, when the hon. Gentleman has put away his joke book and studied the Answer, he will be able to appreciate more of the work done by the Committee.

Mr. Bessell: Is it within the scope of the terms of reference of the Winter Emergencies Committee to inquire into the failure of local authorities and others to deal rapidly with the emergency road conditions caused by snow over last weekend?

The Prime Minister: It would not have been possible for the Committee to go out and de-ice, sand and salt the roads, any more than it could have dealt with problems of icing at points and so forth on the railways. What is certain—my Answer makes this clear—is that one of the things all who have influence in these matters must ensure is that local authorities move more speedily and are ready to move more speedily. Even so, some of the conditions which certain authorities had to face, for example, on the South Coast, where there were large snowfalls or blizzards, would have been almost impossible to deal with immediately. But more needs to be done more speedily.

Mr. Maudling: How much margin of generating capacity would have been available if industrial production had risen vigorously in the last three years?

The Prime Minister: I should want notice of that question. There would still have been an adequate amount. The right hon. Gentleman should recall that he left us with an election boom, after years of stagnation, in which he had entirely failed to plan for electrical generating capacity or gas capacity to provide an adequate margin in the winter of 1965.

Mr. Palmer: Will the Prime Minister bear in mind that, because of continued commissioning troubles with new plant, it is probable that the generating position is not in practice quite as good as it may seem on paper?

The Prime Minister: This is the overall position, allowing for some of the difficulties which have occurred in commissioning. In 1965, there were some bad cases of breakdown at the very worst part of the winter. In the case of gas, there is rather more anxiety, I think, in two of the area boards, though most of them now have plant which is adequate, and also great progress has been made in increasing grid facilities between one area board and another.

Following is the information:

The Winter Emergencies Committee was set up in November, 1965, to ensure, in particular, that the fuel and power industries would be able in successive winters to meet the load put upon them by a normal and, so far as this is possible, an abnormal winter. Especial attention was directed to reducing the delays in the completion of gas making plants and power plants, to the extension of the gas grid and to ensuring that deliveries of plant and equipment from private manufacturers, which had fallen behind schedule, were speeded up.

In addition, attention was given to steps necessary to ensure that distributed stocks of coal were maintained at a reasonable level; that coal supplies could be moved to areas of need in winter conditions; and that special transport facilities, including helicopters, would be available for maintaining food and other essential supplies in remote areas normally cut off by bad weather.

When the work of the Winter Emergencies Committee was merged with the main Emergencies Committee of the Government, it informed me that the progress of plant buildup in gas and electricity had been such that, for this winter, given normal conditions, there would be an overall capacity exceeding normal winter peak load by substantial amounts. The latest estimates are that the maximum output capacity of the electricity supply industry will exceed maximum demand in an average cold spell this winter by 12 per cent., compared with a calculated margin of only 2½ per cent, three years ago. The margin next winter should be even higher. Comparative calculations are not possible for the gas industry—because there is as yet no equivalent of the National Grid—though almost all area gas boards should have adequate surplus capacity this winter, and, again, the position is expected to improve further by next winter.

Under the new arrangements, the work I have described, including that of providing for coal supplies and contact with remote areas, is continued.

The House will agree, not least after the experience of last weekend, that more needs to be done, particularly by certain local authorities whose areas may be suddenly affected by severe winter conditions, so that they may be ready to take with all speed whatever action may be required and possible. But to be able to make full provision in advance


for every contingency in every area would be impossibly expensive, and hon. Members will be aware that even in countries normally subject to nation-wide severe weather conditions for many months at a time it is not possible to avoid disruption, frequently on a large scale, when blizzard conditions and abnormally severe snowfalls occur.

Oral Answers to Questions — RHODESIA

The Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. George Thomson): With your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, I wish to make a statement on Rhodesia.
On 14th November, I gave the House a report on my visit to Rhodesia. As I said then, Mr. Smith and I agreed in Salisbury that we should consult with our colleagues and reflect on our positions. This Her Majesty's Government have now done. I promised to make a full statement as soon as we had considered all the implications and I am grateful to the House for the indulgence which it has shown in not pressing for details.
I feel that the time has now come when the House should know the full position, especially since there has been a widely observed contradiction between my statement that the talks revealed new and fundamental divergences and Mr. Smith's public assertion that there is no great difference between us. I think that the facts should now be known so that the House can judge for itself.
During our 10 hours of talks in Salisbury, Mr. Smith proposed a number of changes in the draft constitution worked out on board H.M.S. "Tiger". Since the details are lengthy, I will, with permission, circulate them in the OFFICIAL REPORT, but I should like to try to summarise their more important features.
Put simply, the most important effect of Mr. Smith's changes would be to remove the safeguards provided by the "Tiger" arrangements against what the second principle called retrogressive amendment of the Constitution. The main change he proposed was that all the African members of the Senate should be Chiefs. This would mean that African elected representatives would no longer have it in their power to block amendments which would weaken the protection given to Africans against discriminatory

legislation or place obstacles in the way of progress to majority rule. In other words, there would not be enough of them to make up a "blocking quarter".
I fully recognise the important place of Chiefs in African society. But in good conscience I could no more accept the Chiefs now as the proper guardians of African political rights than right hon. Gentlemen opposite could accept the Chiefly Indaba as representative of African opinion as a whole in October, 1964. Moreover, it must be recognised that the Chiefs are dependent on the Rhodesian authorities for their pay and allowances, and in the last analysis for their appointment or dismissal.
Because of its implications for the procedure for constitutional amendment, this proposal for a change in the composition of the Senate is a fundamental one. In addition to this, Mr. Smith went on to press for the removal of a further safeguard proposed in the "Tiger" discussions. This was the safeguard providing that amendments to the specially entrenched provisions should be made subject to appeal to a Constitutional Commission consisting of the Rhodesian Chief Justice and other judges, with the further right of appeal to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. Mr. Smith wished to drop this safeguard.
As the House will realise, the changes I have mentioned so far run directly counter to both the first and second of our principles—that there should be guarantees both of unimpeded progress to majority rule and against retrogressive amendment of the Constitution.
Mr. Smith further proposed the abolition of the system of cross-voting embodied in the 1961 Constitution and a reduction, as compared with the "Tiger" arrangements, in the number of B Roll African seats. These proposals would derogate from the third principle, which calls for immediate improvement in the political status of the African population—and would also substantially delay progress towards majority rule.
Mr. Smith made certain other suggestions about the Constitution. As these were put to me they do not necessarily involve fundamental departures from the six principles, and I indicated that we should be very ready to consider them if a general settlement were in prospect.
To sum up, it is the considered view of Her Majesty's Government that the main changes I have described are fundamentally incompatible with the essential principles agreed by both sides of the House. They could not, therefore, form a basis for discussion of a possible settlement which could honourably be commended to Parliament. This is what I gave Mr. Smith in Salisbury as my own immediate reaction. I have now confirmed it to him as the considered view of Her Majesty's Government and have expressed the hope that he will reconsider I he position which he took up during our talks.
Failing this, the House will understand that we have no alternative but to pursue the policy of sanctions in conjunction with the United Nations. Meanwhile, we stand by our pledges to the Commonwealth, including, of course, our declaration on Nibmar.
I refuse to despair of the régime's recognising the dead end in to which they lire leading Rhodesia. For our part, we are certainly not going to slam any doors. Her Majesty's Government remain ready to discuss any proposals for a settlement in Rhodesia that are consistent with principles to which both sides of the House are committed.

Mr. Maudling: The Secretary of State has made a very serious statement, which both sides of the House will wish to consider before they give any judgment on it. No one would want to take any step or say anything that could impede the still remaining chances of an agreement. Certainly, on this side of the House we want above all to have an agreement. We do not want to do anything that might prevent an agreement being reached, and I understand from the right hon. Gentleman's statement that there is still a door open. I have just one question for him. Will he inform the House straight away when he receives Mr. Smith's reply?

Mr. Thomson: I am grateful for what the right hon. Gentleman says. I confirm that it is our desire to obtain a settlement, but, of course, one that must be consistent with principles accepted on both sides of the House. I shall inform the House as soon as I receive a reply from Mr. Smith.

Mr. Thorpe: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Leader of the Opposition spoke for almost everyone when he said on 10th December, 1965, that the whole House abhors the aspects of the police State which have been and are being introduced into Rhodesia today? Is it not a fact that after two years it has become quite apparent that talks will not bring about a change of heart in the rebel régime? When can the right hon. Gentleman give us details of the tightening of sanctions to make them really effective?

Mr. Thomson: I should not like at this stage to take the pessimistic view of the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Liberal Party that there is now no prospect of making further progress, although I freely confess that the outlook is not very promising in the light of what I have just described.
On the question of sanctions, I said in my statement that we are bound to continue, in conjunction with the United Nations, the pressure of sanctions on the régime. As the House knows, the Commonwealth Sanctions Committee is presently discussing this, and as soon as there is something to report I shall tell the House, although I have told the House on other occasions that the essence of sanctions arrangements is that one does not give notice to those whom they affect.

Mr. Roebuck: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many of us on this side of the House will want to congratulate him on the patience he has exhibited in dealing with a bunch of thugs? But will he take note that there is serious concern about the breaking of sanctions by a number of other countries, particularly the French and the Japanese? Can he say that he will take action with his colleagues to try to stamp out this sanctions busting by other countries?

Mr. Thomson: Yes, Sir. One of the subjects I have raised in the Commonwealth Sanctions Committee is precisely the need for joint action to make sure that all the countries which voted for the mandatory resolutions are taking all practicable steps to ensure that firms under their jurisdiction honour those resolutions.

Mr. Rose: Is my right hon. Friend aware that sanctions will be effective only if they are universally applied and backed up by other means? If we do not intend to tighten the screw, would he consider placing the matter fairly and squarely before the United Nations as its responsibility?

Mr. Thomson: The matter is already before the United Nations. We are operating under mandatory resolutions of the organisation. I would ask right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the House who have differing views on the question to be realistic about the operation of sanctions. It would be quite wrong to believe that sanctions are not having an important effect on the Rhodesian economy. But, equally, it is wrong to believe that there is a dramatic short-cut to 100 per cent, effectiveness with sanctions. What sanctions do, I hope, is to place clearly before the Rhodesian community the plain choice between continuing with rebellion and economic stagnation, on the one hand, and returning to legality and economic expansion, on the other.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is not the important effect of sanctions which the right hon. Gentleman has mentioned to consolidate all European and much African support behind Mr. Ian Smith's Government? Are not the new difficulties and differences to which he has referred the result of the protraction of sanctions and the failure of the Government to reach a settlement earlier?

Mr. Thomson: No, Sir. I do not accept that. I think that the impression of consolidation of African opinion behind the Smith régime of which the hon. Gentleman talks is the result of the censorship imposed by the régime and not a result of the sanctions.

Dr. Gray: Will my right hon. Friend pursue sanctions more ardently and seek new ways of making life uncomfortable for that racist and illegal régime?

Mr. Thomson: I hope that my hon. Friend will not need to complain about my lack of ardour, but I try to pursue these matters, together with other associated matters, realistically.

Mr. Turton: As the continuance of the disagreement will damage everyone in

Central Africa and this country, will the right hon. Gentleman give serious consideration to the suggestion of Sir Roy Welensky that the matter be submitted to a Commonwealth mediator, preferably Sir Robert Menzies?

Mr. Thomson: I think that when the right hon. Gentleman has seriously studied the statement I have just made, and, in particular, the more detailed material that will be in the OFFICIAL REPORT, he will discover that Mr. Smith has departed from the principles which we understood that he accepted in such a way that it is very difficult to see what rôle a mediator could play in the circumstances.

Sir Dingle Foot: Did my right hon. Friend take the opportunity to discuss with Mr. Smith the continued detention of the African political leaders, who represent far more people in Rhodesia than do Mr. Smith and his colleagues?

Mr. Thomson: That was one of the questions I raised directly with Mr. Smith, and it is closely linked with any possible test of acceptance, assuming that one could reach the stage of establishing a constitution that conformed with our principles and pledges.

Mr. Sandys: While I hope that these very serious differences can be narrowed, does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that, in view of the obvious failure of sanctions—he must be realistic about that —the British Government will have to accept terms which are less favourable than those which they asked for a year ago, or else they will get no settlement at all?

Mr. Thomson: No, Sir. I do not accept what the right hon. Gentleman has said. With respect to him, I think that the great majority of the House is ready to seek a settlement only within the six principles, of which he is one of the joint authors.

Mr. William Hamilton: Since successive bouts of negotiation have widened the gulf between Her Majesty's Government and the illegal régime, will my right hon. Friend give an undertaking that the next initiative for talks, if there be one, does not come from our Government but from Rhodesia?

Mr. Thomson: I think that the first thing to do is to await what response I get from Mr. Smith to the announcement I have now made.

Mr. Hastings: Is it not indisputable that the growth of an internal opposition to the present Rhodesian Government of the kind which Her Majesty's Government might approve depends entirely upon an agreement? Has the Secretary of State ever considered that?

Mr. Thomson: The hon. Gentleman, not for the first time, is putting the cart before the horse. He is saying that one should accept a settlement on Smith's terms in order to create an opposition in Rhodesia against that settlement, if I understand him correctly.

Mr. Bellenger: As my right hon. Friend has given the impression that there is nothing much more to do in the way of negotiations with the Government of Rhodesia—[HON. MEMBERS: "Not a Government."]—what legal steps are to be taken by this country to make the break complete? Will he give the House an opportunity of debating these issues at an early date?

Mr. Thomson: The question of a debate on Rhodesia is for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Have the Government made any assessment of the continuing cost to our own balance of payments of implementing the sanctions policy? What estimate have they made of the length of time, in view of our present financial stringency, that they can continue to bear this great burden?

Mr. Thomson: Careful estimates have been made. Although balance of payments calculations of this character are extremely complex, because one must try to guess what the situation would have been had there been no U.D.I., I will tell the hon. Gentleman what I have said on other occasions—that the cost to this country, although grievous, is a great deal less than the estimate generally made. But this is a cost which I think that we must bear in support of the principles which both sides of the House £e have accepted.

Mr. Raphael Tack: How long is the door to remain open—until 1970, or 1980, or 1990? When Mr. Smith again slaps

Her Majesty's Government in the face, will they turn the other cheek again or blockade Lourengo Marques and take other sterner measures?

Mr. Thomson: I have made our position on the question of sanctions clear. The first thing is to make sure that the existing sanctions are implemented as effectively as possible. Other measures are under study by the Commonwealth Sanctions Committee.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: Will the right hon. Gentleman produce as quickly as possible a White Paper analysing the application of sanctions in other countries and identifying what legislative provision has been made in other countries for the application of sanctions and how far this has proved effective?

Mr. Thomson: The Secretary-General of the United Nations published at the end of last week a lengthy report containing the information from the member countries of the United Nations about the degree in which they are implementing the sanctions resolution. I will ensure that this report is placed in the Library of the House. Certainly, in the first instance, it will give the right hon. and learned Gentleman a good deal of the information he seeks.

Mr. Maxwell: What positive assistance, if any, are the Government receiving from the Government of South Africa to bring the illegal régime back to legality?

Mr. Thomson: As I reported on 14th November, I took the opportunity to pass through Pretoria to discuss the Rhodesian problem with Dr. Müller, the South African Foreign Minister, and also to raise with him the direct matter that faces us—the presence of South African forces on Rhodesian soil.

Mr. Ian Lloyd: Will not the right hon. Gentleman accept that everything in his statement merely indicates a growing gap between two political philosophies —[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]— and that the whole policy of sanctions is an intolerable price imposed on the people of this country for a bargain which steadily gets worse as the months pass?

Mr. Thomson: I agree with the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question,


but I am not sure, because of the noise, whether or not I understood him to say in the second part that he wished to close the gap by abandoning our democratic philosophies and adopting the kind of philosophy Mr. Smith has.

Mr. Kelley: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the time has arrived when we must determine whether the sanctions policy is to be abandoned and whether we should approach the problem of a solution of the Rhodesian question by approaching people in Rhodesia who have other ideas than those of Mr. Smith about the political future of that nation and trying to attain an agreement with those who are opposed to the present régime?

Mr. Thomson: I still believe that the best method of bringing peaceful pressure to bear on the régime and of seeking a peaceful outcome to the problem is through the application of sanctions under United Nations authority.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. We must move on.

Following are the details:

The proposals put to the Commonwealth Secretary by Mr. Ian Smith at their talks in Salisbury on 9th November, 1967 for the amendment of the constitutional proposals in Part I of the "Tiger" Working Document (Cmnd. 3171, pp. 87 and 88) were as follows:

Composition of the Legislature

2. Paragraph 2 of the Working Document provided for a Legislature consisting of two Houses, composed as follows:

Legislative Assembly
33 "A" Roll Seats.
17 "B" Roll Seats.
17 Reserved European Seats.

Senate
12 Europeans (elected by Europeans on the "A" Roll).
8 Africans (elected by Africans on the "A" and "B" Rolls voting together).
6 Chiefs (elected by the Chiefs' Council).

3. Paragraph 8 of the Working Document provided that the Specially Entrenched provisions of the proposed Constitution should require a vote of at least three-quarters of the total membership of both Houses voting together. The total membership of both Houses together would be 93, three-quarters of which would be 70 (to the nearest whole number), so that a proposed amendment would

fail to be carried if twenty-four members refused to support it. The 17 "B" Roll seats in the Legislative Assembly could be assumed to be filled by Africans or persons acceptable to Africans as their representatives, and together with these members the 8 elected African members of the Senate would supply a total of 25 elected representatives of Africans, i.e. one more than the minimum "blocking quarter" of the total membership of both Houses together required to prevent amendments of Specially Entrenched provisions.

4. On 9th November Mr. Smith pressed for all the African members of the Senate to be Chiefs (elected by the Chiefs' Council). At the same time he said that he would wish the numbers of members in the various categories in the two Houses to be altered as follows:

Legislative Assembly
35 "A" Roll Seats (instead of 33).
15 "B" Roll Seats (instead of 17).
15 Reserved European Seats (instead of 17).

Senate
12 Europeans (no change).
0 Elected Africans (instead of 8).
12 Chiefs (instead of 6).

The total membership of both House together would then be 89. The number required for the passage of an amendment to a Specially Entrenched provision would be 67, and the number required for the "blocking quarter" would be 23. Against this number, the Africans' elected representatives would be able to count on supplying only the 15 elected to the "B" Roll seats in the Legislative Assembly, unless and until Africans were elected to "A" Roll seats. Eight "A" Roll seats would have to be won before the "blocking quarter" could be made up of the Africans' elected representatives.

5. It should also be noted that, under the changes proposed by Mr. Smith, the number of seats in the Legislative Assembly which could be counted on as returning the Africans' elected representatives from the start would be reduced from 17 to 15, while the number of seats likely to be held by Europeans, at least to begin with, would remain unchanged at 50.

Constitutional Appeals

6. Paragraph 8 of the "Tiger" Working Document provided that, in addition to the three-quarters majority of the total membership of both Houses together required for the passage of an amendment to a Specially Entrenched provision, there should also be a system of appeal against such an amendment. Such an appeal would lie in the first instance to a Constitutional Commission in Rhodesia, consisting of the Chief Justice and other judges: with further appeal as of right to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council.

7. Mr. Smith said on 9th November that this system of appeals was objectionable in principle and should be dropped.

8. Quite apart from his objections in principle, he had the following objections of detail


to the proposed machinery for the appeals and to the formulation of the permitted grounds of appeal:

(a) the Working Document provided that amendments subject to appeal should not come into force until the time for appeal had expired or the appeal had been finally disposed of. He objected to the delay which this would cause to the commencement even of legislation eventually held to be unobjectionable. In offering to consider whether it would be possible to meet Mr. Smith on this point, the Commonwealth Secretary reminded him that the "Tiger" discussions had envisaged arrangements for the rapid disposal of these cases and for summary rejection of frivolous or vexatious appeals;

(b) the Working Document provided that an appeal might be brought on the ground that the amendment in question "discriminates unjustly or has the effect of discriminating unjustly between the races…". Mr. Smith objected to the phrase" or has the effect of…" on the ground that it greatly widened the scope of the provision and was in fact contrary to what had been agreed on the "Tiger". The Commonwealth Secretary said that he was advised that the account of the relevant discussion on page 81 of Cmnd.3171 was accurate: he commented that this appeared to be a drafting point which could be left to be settled by the constitutional draftsmen;

(c) the other permitted ground of appeal was that the amendment in question "contravenes any of the provisions of the Declaration of Rights contained in the Constitution". Mr. Smith objected that this would have the effect of making it impossible to amend the Declaration of Rights. The Commonwealth Secretary replied that the reference was clearly intended to be not to each and every amendment affecting the Declaration of Rights, but only to those held by the Courts to derogate from its fundamental principles.

Cross-Voting

9. The 1961 Constitution provides for the country to be divided into 50 "constituencies" (to have as nearly as possible the same numbers of "A" Roll voters) and 15 "electoral districts" (to have as nearly as possible the same numbers of "B" Roll voters). All the voters in a constituency or an electoral district, whichever Roll they are on, can vote in elections in that constituency or electoral district; but in

a constituency in which there are more than one-quarter as many votes cast by voters on the "B" Roll as by voters on the "A" Roll, the number of "B" Roll votes received by each candidate is to be reduced proportionately so that the total number of "B" Roll votes received is equal to one-quarter of the "A" Roll votes received: and vice versa in the electoral districts.

10. This system is known as cross-voting, and serves to give "B" Roll voters an influence in the election of members from the (primarily "A" Roll) constituencies, and likewise "A" Roll voters an influence in the election of candidates from the (primarily "B" Roll) electoral districts.

11. The "Tiger" Working Document provided for this system of cross-voting to continue. Mr. Smith proposed on 9th November that it should be abandoned, so that "B" Roll electors would vote only for the "B" Roll seats, for which "A" Roll electors would not vote.

12. In addition to pressing for the abolition of cross-voting (see paragraph 11 above) Mr. Smith pointed out that it was presumably a slip for paragraph 3 of the "Tiger" Working Document to say that cross-voting would be applied to "all seats", since some seats were expressly described as to be elected by voters of a specified community and on a specified Roll: thus, the 12 European seats in the Senate were to be elected by Europeans on the "A" Roll. It was agreed that the clear intention was that cross-voting should be applied only to the "A" Roll and "B" Roll seats in the Legislative Assembly.

Delimitation Commission

13. Paragraph 4 of the "Tiger" Working Document provided that alterations in the composition of both Houses and in the number of seats should be effected by the Special Entrenchment procedure; it also provided for the incorporation in the Delimitation Commission's terms of reference of an agreed formula regarding the Commission's "over riding objective" in dividing the constituencies. Mr. Smith argued on 9th November that it was not right—and had not in fact been agreed in the "Tiger"—that both the "agreed formula" and Section 37 of the Constitution should be made Specially Entrenched provisions. It was agreed that this question would require further legal study if sufficient progress were made on other points to justify it.

Oral Answers to Questions — REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT 1949 (AMENDMENT) (No. 2)

3.55 p.m.

Mr. Denis Coe: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to enable reference to be made on nomination and ballot papers at parliamentary and local elections to the political or other allegiances of candidates, and to make provision to avoid inaccurate use of such allegiances.
Since introducing a similar Motion last Session—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Will hon. Members leave the Chamber quietly.

Mr. Coe: Since introducing a similar Motion last Session, I have been encouraged by the support I have received from both individuals and associations. Recent local elections have persuaded people that this matter is somewhat urgent. As we move towards larger units of local government, perhaps towards regional councils, it is impossible for electors personally to know all the candidates standing at an election. It is, therefore, inevitable that they vote according to the party allegiances of the candidates. The G.L.C. elections earlier this year provided electorates in excess of 200,000 and electors were expected to remember the names of up to four candidates from among as many as 21. This demands a prodigious feat of memory, but for many years before that, in parish and rural district councils, the number of candidates has been large, so that that problem is not new to local elections.
One dramatic consequence to be observed at the G.L.C. elections was the large number of electors who did not use their full quota of votes. In some London boroughs, this was in excess of 10,000. I suggest that this was because those electors could not remember the names of all the candidates they wished to vote for so that, rather than vote for someone they would be against, they did not use their full quotas. This situation would be avoided if political allegiances were shown on the ballot papers.
Again, there is some evidence that the alphabetical order on the ballot paper influences voting habits. The Bill would also avoid that difficulty. Where candidates have the same or similar names, an even more spectacular result can occur. Where—

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is difficult for an hon. Member to address the House against a whole series of background conversations.

Mr. Coe: As I was saying, where candidates have the same or similar names, the difficulties can be spectacular. The best example in the G.L.C. elections was at Wandsworth. There was a very well-known retiring Labour councillor called Pritchard. He got 6,000 votes less than his Labour colleagues on the ballot paper while a Liberal candidate also called Pritchard obtained 6,000 more votes than his Liberal colleagues. Thus, confusion over names can seriously affect results and this, too, would be avoided by the Bill.
I have drawn examples from local government because the difficulty is most urgent there. My Bill, however, would also cover parliamentary elections. I draw the attention of the House to the confusion in Anglesey when, in 1955, on the ballot paper, there were three candidates called Hughes and one called Jones. In 1964, it was the other way round— there were three Joneses and one Hughes. In the light of possible confusion, I am sorry that Mr. Speaker's Conference has recently recommended no change and that political allegiances should not appear on the nomination and ballot papers of parliamentary elections.
In my view, therefore, on the grounds of size of electorates, the dominant rôle of party politics today, the confusion which arises from large numbers of candidates, their places on the ballot papers and similarity of names, my Bill would be a practical way of helping the electors to vote for the candidates of their choice.
While many people would accept the principle of the Bill, some believe that it would be difficult to carry out in practice. There is the danger that party labels might be used indiscriminately and, therefore, might cause more confusion. Equally, there is the task of adjudicating between labels, which could hardly be left to a returning officer. I believe that too much can be made of this, but in that it is a legitimate fear my Bill would endeavour to overcome these difficulties by the registration of party labels.
The actual details could be further discussed in Committee, but broadly, the


first provision would be to change Schedules 2 and 3 of the Representation of the People Act 1949, so that political and other allegiances could be added to existing descriptions. Secondly, my Bill would provide for the registration of parties by the Registrar of Friendly Societies and this would enable a party or association which was so registered to have the sole use of that particular label. This would not hinder individuals from standing for election, because they would continue to be independent, and that would be shown by the fact that no political allegiance would appear after their names on the ballot paper.
There is nothing new in this principle. It is followed in other countries which register parties and insert the allegiances of candidates on ballot papers, but, unlike some other countries, we would retain the right of individuals to stand for election without party assistance. It will be said that I wish to make voting too easy for the electorate who should know the names of candidates. To me, the important democratic act is when the Sectors go to the polling stations and put their crosses against the names of the candidates of their choice; and if my Bill helps them to do that, it is of some importance.
Lastly, it is said that my Bill would recognise political parties. Indeed it would, and why not? Surely we should

have sufficient confidence in our political system to be prepared to recognise not only that political parties exist, but that our political system would fail if they did not. While party politics have their excesses, they also have their virtues in addition to being established fact. The Bill would, therefore, go some way to raise the status of parties in the eyes of the electorate and have a beneficial effect on the democratic system as a whole.
For all those reasons I ask the House for leave to bring in a Bill which would be widely welcomed and would have a modest influence for good on our Parliamentary democracy.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Coe, Dr. Ernest A. Davies, Mr. Hamling, Mr. Alexander W. Lyon, Mr. Tinn, and Mr. David Watkins.

REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE ACT 1949 (AMENDMENT) (NO. 2)

Bill to enable reference to be made on nomination and ballot papers at parliamentary and local elections to the political or other allegiances of candidates, and to make provision to avoid inaccurate use of such allegiances, presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time upon Friday, 22nd March, 1968, and to be printed. [Bill 48.]

Orders of the Day — EDUCATION BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

4.3 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Patrick Gordon Walker): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
I would like, by way of introduction and because there seems to have been some misunderstanding on the point, to make one thing quite clear straight away. Although the Bill arises out of and is in a sense drafted in the terms of the interim injunction granted by the Court of Appeal in the case of Bradbury and Enfield Borough Council, its provisions will not affect in any way whatever the way in which the Enfield authority's proposals for the future of the eight schools involved in the case will be dealt with. These schools are being dealt with and will continue to be dealt with in accordance with the decision of the Court of Appeal on the basis of the law as the court held it to be. There is nothing in the Bill to change that.
To come now to the terms of the Bill, it is a short, but, I am afraid, rather technical Bill. To make things clearer, I have adopted the device of publishing in the Third Schedule the text of the relevant Sections of the 1944 Act as they would read were the Bill to become law. The Amendments proposed in the Bill are printed in heavy type.
I think that it will assist the House if, before I describe the provisions of the Bill in detail, I explain briefly how the present legislation operates, which it is intended to amend or elaborate. Section 13 of the Education Act, 1944 requires that when a local education authority or the promoters of a voluntary school propose to establish a new school, or when a local education authority proposes to close an existing school, they must give public notices to this effect, so that inhabitants of the locality can, if they wish, submit objections to me. After a two months' interval for those objections, the proposal is subject to my approval. In most cases it is clear enough what is meant by the establishment of a new school, namely,

the setting up of a new education entity in a new set of buildings.
The present Act also provides specifically for one type of change to an existing school being treated as the setting up of a new school. Under Section 67 of the Act, that is how an enlargement is treated if I determine that the resultant school is so different from the old that it can reasonably be considered a new school. Apart from this, it has been the practice throughout the currency of the 1944 Act—under every Administration— to treat most changes to existing schools as not constituting the setting up of a new school.
The Court of Appeal ruled otherwise. It held that a change in the age range of the pupils of a school or a change in the sex composition of the pupils—even if this occurred in existing premises—was so fundamental as to constitute the discontinuance of the school and the setting up of a new one and thus required the publication of notices. On this basis, large numbers of schools, running into hundreds, now operating in the country have been established without complying with the requirements of the law as the Court of Appeal has now interpreted it. Not only secondary schools involved in reorganisation are affected. The separation of the infants' department of a primary school—if, as was almost always the case, no notices were given—would be an unlawfully established school.
The full implications of the Court's judgment are not clear because it was not called upon to go into this. But we cannot exclude the possibility that any schools that were, under the Court's statement of the law, unlawfully established are now being unlawfully maintained by the local authority, which is unlawfully spending the taxpayers', or ratepayers', money on them. I am sure that the whole House will agree that we cannot leave the legal status of so many schools and the validity of the action of local education authorities in this state of doubt.
The first purpose of the Bill will be to regularise the legal position of those schools. This is achieved by Clause 1 subsections (1) and (4). I make no apology for proposing this act of mass legitimisation. My predecessors of both parties—more on the other side of the


House than on this—and the local education authorities have acted in good faith in taking the decisions which have now been shown to be invalid. Their actions have not been a cause of great controversy and the schools in question are undistinguishable from those whose official birth was properly sanctified.
Although this is in one sense retrospective legislation, it is not so in the sense that is often found objectionable by the House. The Bill does not render unlawful anything that was lawfully done. It does not deprive any individual of any legal rights vested in him. Nor does it —as I have explained—reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Bradbury and Enfield Borough Council.
The next main purpose of the Bill is to make provision for the future. This is done by giving statutory force to the substance of the Court of Appeal's decision. If it is proposed to make any substantial change in the age range or sex composition of a school after the end of the summer term, 1968, notices must be issued and two months provided for objections to be made to the Secretary of State, who must, of course, consider them before coming to his decision. This is achieved by Clause 1(2) and (5).
The Bill, in fact, extends the effects of the injunction by providing that any substantial change in the ability range of a school must in the same way be done by notice. The Court of Appeal held that the present law imposes no such obligation. I felt that the law should provide a statutory right to parents and others to object on the question that often concerns them most, namely, whether or not a school should become or remain comprehensive.
Of course, all these provisions work both ways. Parents will have a right to object to any changes in the character of a school by way of alteration in its age range, sex composition or ability range, if it is proposed to make a selective school comprehensive. But they will have the same right to object if the opposite were proposed, namely, to make a comprehensive school selective. In both cases I would have to consider the objections and come to my conclusion.
If such changes in the nature of a school were proposed for purposes other than those I have mentioned, the right of

objection would, of course, apply. It may be asked why we did not leave these matters to be settled in future according to the terms of the Court of Appeal's injunction. There are two reasons. One I have just mentioned, namely, the desirability of extending the right of objection to changes in the ability range of a school.
The second reason is technical but very important. If, in the future, we went on the basis that a change in the character of a school is so fundamental as to constitute the closure of one school and its replacement by a new one and thus to bring Section 13 and its public notices into play—if we went on this basis, we would run into technical difficulties over changes to special agreement and controlled schools.
These are matters of great detail which my right hon. Friend will explain if hon. Members wish to raise them further. But I can assure hon. Members that this is a point which makes necessary a change in the basis of the law as laid down by the Court of Appeal.
But let me say again that the substance of the law as laid down by the Court of Appeal is not altered. Indeed, it is extended by the Bill. All that is done is that the effect of this judgment will in future rest upon a statutory basis, instead of upon the terms of the judgment. In this connection, I should refer to Schedule 1, paragraph 3, which should be read together with paragraph 5(c). This is a point which may have caused some concern to hon. Gentlemen opposite.
The effect is to give -the Secretary of State the power to decide whether a change in the character of a school or an enlargement of school premises is significant and, therefore, whether the notices procedure should come into play. The reason for this is exactly the same as the reason why the 1944 Act gave the Minister the power to decide whether an enlargement of a school was substantial, namely, that the absence of such a power would lead to doubt and delay.
I am referring here only to changes in the character of a school which, in fact, continues in existing buildings. The Bill does not affect the existing provisions in regard to a new educational entity in new buildings or out-and-out changes


such as turning a boys' school into a girls' school or a secondary school into a primary school.
The Bill, however, provides, in Clause 1(1), that other changes in size and character should not be regarded as replacing an old school by a new one. Nevertheless, under the Bill, such changes, if significant, will be subject to the process of publication of notices and representations.

Sir Edward Boyle: I have one important question here. Why is there discretion in the Bill, in Clause 1(1,b)? Why does the right hon. Gentleman make this sharp distinction between turning a boys' school into a girls' school or vice versa, as compared with turning a boys' school into a mixed school?

Mr. Gordon Walker: This is because that was really the terms of the judgment given by the Court of Appeal, which talked about a change in the sex composition. I quite agree that, if this is not provided for in the Bill, it certainly ought to be. This would be a change in the sex composition and this is what I am intending to provide for in the Bill. If we find that this is so it could be amended in Committee. I am certainly not intending to exclude a change that really does amount to a change in the sex composition of a school.
Paragraph 5 of the First Schedule defines "significant" in relation to a change in the character or size of a school as implying a substantial change in the function or size of the school. The concept of a substantial change in the function of a school is a new one, which, I think, would be helpful.
The need for such discretion arises out of the wide gamut of changes that can be made in the character and size of a school. At one end, for instance, there might be a change from a single sex to a mixed school. That would clearly be a substantial change in the function of the school and the notices procedure would apply.
At the other end of the scale it might be proposed to admit a small number of girls to the sixth form of a boys' school, for instruction in a particular subject not available in their own school,

or two neighbouring single sex schools might wish to organise joint arrangements for giving special help to backward pupils. Equally, quite small changes might be made in the premises of a school that did not substantially increase the number of pupils in it.
It would be idiotic to go through the notices procedure with its two months' delay before quite minor changes in the character or size of a school could be made. But unless L.E.A.s could be given decisions by the Secretary of State about what amounted to significant changes, they might, to avoid challenge in the courts, go through the whole notices procedure for every change they made, however insignificant. This might well cause serious delay in local administration in regard to a whole range of desirable small changes which ought to be made quickly.
If the Bill becomes law, I shall give L.E.A.s some general guidance on this subject. Any change about whose significance there might be any doubt would be referred to my Department.
The Bill makes some change, in Clause 2, in regard to school premises and the securing of proper standards of accommodation. Under the existing law, when proposals for a new school have been approved under Section 13(4) of the 1944 Act, the local education authority or other persons are required to submit for my approval, plans and specifications of the premises to be provided. Here, again, the Bill does not alter the law where new schools in brand-new premises are concerned, or where a school is established in new premises not previously used as a school, such as a country house.
The changes made by the Bill relate to the establishment of a new school in premises which were in use as a school at the time when the proposals for the new school were approved. In such cases it will be for me to decide whether plans and specifications should be supplied by the local education authority. There is no point in requiring such plans and specifications in regard to premises when no change is being made.
I should, of course, require plans and specifications when alterations to the premises are proposed, or in cases when I may not already have sufficient information. This change is effected by Clause 2(1, a).
The Secretary of State has always had power to relax the prescribed standards of schools in certain circumstances. The proviso to Section 10(2) of the 1944 Act and Section 7(2,b) of the 1948 Act enabled the Minister to relax the standards if this was necessary because, in the words of the Act, of a
 shortage of labour and materials ".
These words may have been appropriate in the post-war period—but everyone knows that the rate at which school premises are brought up to standard is governed by the school building programme, which, in its turn, is dependent upon the Government's policy with regard to the control of public expenditure. By the use of suitable words in Clause 2(3), the Bill brings things up to date by stating the true ground on which the Secretary of State may have to relax standards.
By Clause 2(2) the Bill also puts right the anomaly that a dispensation given in respect of premises of an existing school lapses and cannot be renewed, if these premises are taken over by a new school.
There are a number of other detailed points, some of which my hon. Friend will deal with at the end of the debate together with any points that hon. Members may raise. There are also points which we would take up in Committee. Meanwhile, I commend to the House the principle of this Bill, which is a useful and in some ways an important Measure. It is absolutely essential if we are to avoid doubts about the past and intractable difficulties in the future.
I am sure that the clarification and extension of the law, and the simplification and modernisation of our procedures proposed in the Bill, will be beneficial to all who are concerned in the running and organisation of our schools.

4.20 p.m.

Sir Edward Boyle: I am sure that the whole House will be grateful to the Secretary of State for his exposition of the Bill. As he says, it is a short Bill, but it has a technical and, indeed, fairly formidable appearance. I should like to thank him for the drafting decision to include the revised Sections of the 1944, 1946 and 1948 Acts as Schedule 3 to the Bill.
I would also underline very much what the right hon. Gentleman said about the

guidance which needs to be sent to local authorities when the Bill is passed through Parliament. I venture to say to him that something more than the normal circular will be needed. Local authorities should have a detailed explanation of the implications of the Bill.
The other initial remark which I should like to make is this. I do not want to spend a lot of time in going over the past, but I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman would disagree that in all probability we should not have had the Bill today if the Enfield parents had not forced the issue. I wish to make two comments on that episode. First, what caused us on this side of the House most concern was not simply the legal aspect of the Enfield affair, but the fact that the right hon. Gentleman laid himself open to the charge in the courts of acting in a "thoroughly unreasonable manner in the circumstances."

Mr. Gordon Walker: That decision does not have any relationship to the Bill at all. The Bill arises from the decision in the case of Bradbury and the Enfield Borough Council. The case to which the right hon. Gentleman refers has no relationship to the Bill whatsoever.

Sir E. Boyle: I am not sure that the right hon. Gentleman is literally accurate, because Schedule 1, paragraph 2, deals with the question of articles of government.
Secondly, I think, that the world outside should be clear that the Bill does not in any way strengthen the powers of the Secretary of State against an authority which does not wish to reorganise its existing schools. It is important to be clear that the Bill does not touch on that issue. I make that point because it was only last Thursday, I think, that the right hon. Gentleman emphasised, in answer to a Question, that
 we cannot afford money at the moment for any large-scale building of comprehensive schools."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th December, 1967; Vol. 755, c. 1653.]
In these circumstances, we on this side of the House are very glad that, at a time when there is not money to enable viable comprehensive schemes to be provided, the right hon. Gentleman is not taking fresh powers against authorities concerned about their existing schools.
Having said those few words on what the Bill does not do, I should like next to follow the Secretary of State and deal with the principal function which the Bill performs. As the right hon. Gentleman said, the Bill gives statutory force to the Court of Appeal's decision. The purpose of the Bill was lucidly expressed by Sir William Alexander, in last week's edition of the A.E.C.'s journal Education.
He said:
… the Bill acknowledges the grievances ventilated at Enfield, and concedes to parents, local government electors, and other third parties, the right to lodge objections to proposals for a significant change in the character or size of existing schools, by requiring specific notices of any such proposals under Section 13 "—
subsection (3), I think—
 even though the proposals do not constitute the establishment of a new school or ceasing to maintain an existing school.
This is an important change in the law, and, speaking as a former Minister, it clarifies what has hitherto always been a somewhat difficult and perplexing issue for Ministers: exactly what in the old days was the precise ambit of Section 13 of the 1944 Act and when should local government electors, parents and others, have the opportunity to lodge objections in accordance with the procedure of subsection (3)? For myself, I always found this a somewhat difficult issue. My own bias, when in doubt, was always on the side of giving parents and others the opportunity to lodge objections.
I do not blame the Secretary of State, because he could act only on the advice which he was given, but I think that perhaps he went a little far in suggesting that on all the points at issue in Clause 1 there had never been any questioning of the legal position in the old days. If he will look—I will not take up the time of the House with the point now—some time at a debate which we had in April, 1957, on the subject of a change at Aylesbury from a mixed school to a single sex school, he will find that I then regarded it as a Section 13 matter. But the point is that the issue is now being clarified once for all. I would advise my hon. Friends to look on Clause 1(2) as an important clarifying step which the House should welcome.
Something on which I should like some more information from the right hon. Lady the Minister of State when she replies is this. Clearly, the force of Clause 1(2) depends very much on the word "significant". What is to rank as a "significant" change? I feel that the more specific the Department can be on this point, the better for the whole education service.
As I understand, and as I understood the speech of the Secretary of State, there is no doubt that a change from a single sex school to a mixed school, or vice versa, will constitute a significant change. Likewise, a change from either a selective school or a secondary modern school to a comprehensive school will constitute a significant change. I take the right hon. Gentleman's point that the opposite way round equally applies. We on this side of the House would recognise that. I imagine that a change from any form of existing secondary school to what is usually called a sixth form college would be regarded as a significant change.
I ask that, because it is exactly at the margin that these matters are important. When the Leicestershire scheme was introduced, 10 years ago, the Leicestershire grammar schools, instead of being selective schools from 11 to 18, became grammar schools with an age range of from 14 to 18. I think that change was not regarded at the time as requiring the invoking of the Section 13(3) procedure. However, I should have thought that if the age range of a school was changed from 11 to 18 and it became a sixth form college that would be a significant change.

Mr. Christopher Price: Is not the right hon. Gentleman contradicting himself? Although the Leicestershire grammar schools changed their age range only quite slightly, surely they changed from being selective to non-selective schools and yet were allowed to be exempt from issuing Section 13 notices.

Mr. Gordon Walker: That was the then law.

Sir E. Boyle: Yes, and on second thoughts, I accept the hon. Gentleman's point that for the reason which he has given this should count as a significant change.
There are two other types of change which are important. First, let us remember that the Bill presumably also applies to primary schools; it is not solely concerned with secondary schools. Therefore, a change from 5 to 7 to 5 to 11 would be a significant change. Lastly, some of us on this side of the House and some local authorities would particularly like to know more about the position of the middle schools under the Bill. How are the schools with age ranges of 8 to 12 or 9 to 13 placed for purposes of the Bill? I imagine that they will be covered, but I think that their position under Section 13(3), and also the standards and specifications required for them, should have their proper statutory provision in our educational legislation.
There is also the question of what constitutes a "significant enlargement". Here, I think, I know the answer, but perhaps the right hon. Lady could just confirm this. I think that for the purposes of Section 67(4) we have always recognised 25 per cent, as being a significant enlargement, and that would seem to me a perfectly reasonable scale to continue to operate.
Having spoken about Clause 1(2), I should now like just to say something about subsection (1). As I understand it—and I think that the right hon. Gentleman may agree that on this the Bill is somewhat technical—it is exactly here that we meet the essential point in the drafting of the Bill, and it is that the Bill makes a distinction between the procedure for notices under Section 13(3) of the 1944 Act and the procedure for establishing a new school involving as it does the submission of plans and specifications. That is to say, the whole point about Clause 1 is that certain changes do not involve the establishment of a new school even though they do justify the operation of the notices procedure under Section 13(3).
It is at this point that I come back to my question which, I think, I may have put to the right hon. Gentleman wrongly just now, and if I did I apologise. On Clause 1(1), I still am a little bothered about paragraph (b), which says, in effect, that a school is not to be regarded as a new school simply because it has been a mixed school and is now a single sex school or vice-versa.

Mr. Gordon Walker: I agree that this is highly technical. Subsection (1, a, b, c) is dealing with the past. This is retrospective, and it has to be read with subsection (4), which says:
 Subsection (1) above shall be deemed to have had effect since the beginning of April 1945 
up to today. This is the one which clears up the doubts which have arisen owing to the decision. It is only when we get to subsection (2) that we are dealing with the future.

Sir E. Boyle: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for saying that that subsection (1) is to be read in conjunction with subsection (4). Of course, I must accept what he says, and also that this is a matter which we can more profitably pursue in Committee.
But I am, as I say, concerned on this general point, that we should not make a distinction between, on the one hand a direct change of sex and, on the other, a change from single sex to mixed or vice versa. I mention this because we know very well that while the comprehensive issue is most in our minds today, the question of single sex and mixed schools can create extremely strong feeling in local authority areas.

Mr. Gordon Walker: Any sex change.

Sir E. Boyle: Any sex change, exactly.
On the retrospective issue, that is, Clause 1(4), I accept, of course, the right hon. Gentleman's general point that the Bill does not render unlawful anything which has previously been done in good faith and thought to be lawful. We can discuss that subsection upstairs. I have always personally believed, as a former Financial Secretary, that there is, as it were, a spectrum of retrospective situations which can arise; certainly, one felt this about Finance Bills. I do not wish to take up a strong position on this subject this afternoon.
One rather interesting point was raised, again, I think, in Education: was there any danger to authorities which had already done as Enfield proposed without issuing notices if challenged on a district audit for spending money to maintain schools which had been established illegally? Perhaps we can have it confirmed that should that eventuality arise it is something which is seen to by the


relevant Sections—I think Section 228 and Section 230—of the Local Government Act. 1933.
Before coming to my concluding remarks, I should like to say something on the subject of Clause 2. Here, I must confess to the right hon. Gentleman that I am a little less happy about what he is proposing. As I understand the situation, it is this. Section 10 of the 1944 Act imposes on the local education authority a duty to secure that the schools which it maintains shall conform to the standards prescribed in the regulations made by the Secretary of State, and the latest regulations are the Standards for School Premises Regulations, 1959, but Section 7 of the Education (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1948, entitles the Secretary of State to approve plans for a new school in existing buildings if he is satisfied that
 having regard to the shortage of labour or materials it would be unreasonable to require conformity with a requirement of the regulations relating to buildings ".
I would agree with the right hon. Gentleman that those words have a rather old-fashioned ring these days. They reflect the fact that in 1948, immediately after the war, it was shortage of materials which was most in our minds —indeed, this was a long time before the present system of control of capital expenditure took its existing form. I think that none of us would attempt to deny that some reform of those words is needed, but I must say that the right hon. Gentleman's proposition just to replace them with
 having regard to the need to control public expenditure in the interests of the national economy "—
simply to use those words to give him an unqualified dispensation from making comprehensive schools in existing buildings conform to the 1967 standards, is, I think, to give too wide a latitude.
May I put it this way to the House? I think that I shall have on this the support of all my hon. Friends. I certainly have never taken the position and I do not take it this afternoon, that it is always wrong to reorganise existing schools and always wrong to have comprehensive plans for existing school buildings which do not conform to the 1967 building regulations. Such a view

as that would be quite unrealistic and would rule out a number of perfectly sound reorganisation schemes. I should like to make it plain that I am not asking for anything so restrictive as that.
At the same time, the right hon. Gentleman must be aware, and many hon. Members opposite must be aware, that even among those who are not unsympathetic to the general direction today in secondary education—even among them—there is a great deal of concern about comprehensive plans which involve existing buildings, and, of course, particularly so when the buildings themselves are widely separated. I am not trying to evoke prejudice on this matter, but I heard only very recently of one comprehensive plan involving buildings which are two miles apart.
That sort of thing really does cause very great concern, and the degree to which comprehensive proposals fall short of the 1967 building standards for new schools, is, I think, a matter which legitimately does cause anxiety; I would suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that his proposed words give him really too much latitude and that we should have something more like:
 Provided that if the Secretary of State is satisfied… that, having regard to the need to control public expenditure in the interests of the national economy, the proposals of the authority sufficiently approximate to the standards of the regulations relating to new school buildings ";
something, in other words, which makes it clear that where a local education authority is planning to bring about a reorganised school in existing buildings, we should aim to get as near as we can to the standards for new comprehensive schools.
Of course, as the House will agree, these are all matters which we can take up profitably in Committee. My present feeling is that we on this side of the House should welcome Clause 1, with the statutory force that it gives in subsection (2) to the Court of Appeal's judgment. This is something which clarifies the law in a valuable way. I feel rather less happy about the ambit of the dispensation which the right hon. Gentleman takes to himself in Clause 2(3).
In conclusion, I would just say this. I have always believed that the law of education is important. We, all of us, including Ministers, move within its


framework. Education is about institutions and, among others things, about the legal rights of individuals, of parents, of local government electors. At the same time, no change in the law can make up for the lack of wise policy. Ultimately, the value of this Statute must lie not just in its legal provisions, but in the way in which the right hon. Gentleman or any other Minister operates it, especially Clause 1.
I am one of those who still think that it is right that education should be a local government service. We have to establish the conditions of partnership between central Government and local government in this sphere of activity, as in many others. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, there is a good deal of feeling today that, with many reorganisation plans, there has been inadequate consultation. One reads criticisms of local schemes on educational grounds from sources which cannot be regarded as biased. The party opposite hooted at me the other day when I spoke to the Enfield Association for the Advancement of State Education. However, that Association is a totally non-political body which is by no means biased against comprehensive schools. As its chairman, Margaret Jepson, has written:
 The majority of our members are in favour of comprehensive education.
In her letter, she goes on to say:
 We have been critical of the local scheme because we have been concerned not only with the ending of selection, but also with the quality of education to be offered in the new schools.
Ultimately, the justification for any education proposals and the success of the workings of any Statute, must be measured by the way in which both central and local government co-operate together towards what is educationally right. We on this side of the House accept that the trend of educational opinion is rightly against patterns which involve segregation at the ages of 11 or 12. None the less, I believe that we shall see before us years in which it will be of special importance both for central and local government to exercise a great deal of trouble, and a certain amount of mutual forebearance, in the devising of plans which are educationally sound.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will do all that he can to make local authorities, parents and all those con-

cerned with the service feel that educational values must be paramount—and that is vital—so that as many parents as possible can feel that the law, along with policy and financial resources, is being used for the benefit of individual children, to the advantage of the nation, and for their personal fulfilment as well.

4.44 p.m.

Mr. Austen Albu: I begin by giving a brief welcome to this very necessary piece of legislation, and perhaps I might draw attention to the very different tone of today's debate from that in which the matter from which it arises was last discussed, on 12th May.
This may no doubt be because, on this occasion, the Opposition are represented principally by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle), whose interest in education and whose deep feeling for its real meaning is fully appreciated on this side of the House, and not, as on the last occasion, by the two Conservative Members for the constituencies in the Borough of Enfield, the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) and the hon. Member for Southgate (Mr. Berry), who made nothing but party political speeches.
Now that legislation is being introduced which clarifies the law and quite rightly extends and makes clear the rights of objections by parents, I hope that the education authority in Enfield will be allowed to get on with its job.
As my right hon. Friend said, this is not a Bill to protect the Enfield education authority. As the town clerk of the borough has put it, in a sense Enfield was a guinea pig which suffered from the disease of litigation in order to gain its immunity. The Bill will now vaccinate the many other authorities which may be in danger of suffering from the same disease.
No one wants to prevent reasonable objection by parents who have doubts about the plans being proposed by a local education authority for closing schools, opening schools or changing the nature of existing schools. But it must be said that the campaign which was waged against the Enfield scheme by a very small number of parents, supported by an association and petitions with signatures collected from widely outside


the borough, in addition to the support given to it by the right hon. Member for Enfield, West and an ex-Conservative candidate, was based on a fundamental hostility to the system of comprehensive education itself.
On the other hand, it is the popularity of comprehensive education and the hostility to the selective system which has led the right hon. Member for Handsworth to support the moves towards a system of comprehensive education in this country and to resist pressures from more reactionary members of his party who demonstrated so clearly at their party conference this year and again when the Conservatives won the Greater London Council. If anyone doubts that I draw attention to the petition which has been drawn up by the Enfield Parents' Association and for which signatures are being subscribed by citizens in the Borough of Enfield. It bears a very large number of signatures, and the number is growing.

Sir E. Boyle: If the hon. Gentleman is under the impression that my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) is a doctrinaire opponent of comprehensive education, he has been misinformed. My right hon. Friend has a thriving comprehensive in his constituency at Potters Bar, which, in fact, he opened himself. In his speech, his concern was with the nature of the Enfield plan. It is a concern which I have myself expressed, as has the Enfield Association for the Advancement of State Education.

Mr. Albu: The Enfield Association for the Advancement of State Education is a new body, and some of its objections are based on a lack of information about what is taking place, which is not surprising as it is such a new body. However, the complaints which it is making about the conditions in some schools are already out of date and, in a few months' time, will be completely out of date as the schools are brought up to standard. Meanwhile, I am concerned about the effect on the children themselves, and I have no doubt that these demands and the uncertainties about the future of education in the Borough of Enfield are harmful to the children.
The Enfield Teachers' Association has expressed its concern about the tem-

porary arrangements being made for the pupils affected by the injunction, and I urge my right hon. Friend to give his decision on the schools as soon as possible, so that the council can implement its comprehensive plan at the earliest opportunity and both teachers and parents shall know exactly what sort of schools there, will be in the borough to which their children can go. The parents of those children who are already going to schools where the change has taken place have expressed considerable satisfaction.
The improvement in the law which is made in the Bill is welcomed by us all. It is a technical piece of legislation, and there are some difficulties in understanding it fully. I take the points made by the right hon. Member for Handsworth, but I do not accept them entirely, especially that which he makes about Clause 2. However, now that the Bill is to become law, apparently with unanimous approval, I hope that the authorities who are trying to get on with improving their systems of education will be allowed to do so without the sort of partisan intervention which I cannot help feeling took place in the Borough of Enfield.

4.51 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Silvester: The constituency to which I have just been elected is diminishing in size— the Boundary Commission is constantly looking at it with reforming zeal—but the House will agree that it is showing in its old age a continued independence of spirit. Part of this is due to the work of former Members and candidates, whose work I have the honour to inherit. The House will know that Earl Attlee one represented Walthamstow, West.
I want to say something special about my immediate predecessor, Mr. Redhead. It is appropriate that this occasion should have arisen in an education debate. Mr. Redhead was Member for Walthamstow, West for 11 years. In that time he espoused many causes, but he had a special interest in education, and I know that his period of office as Minister of State for Education was a great joy to him. The House will know better than I the considerable contribution which he made as a Member, and I add my tribute to the work that he did in Walthamstow. He served for many years both on the


council and in the House. He was, therefore, in a unique position to look after the interests of his constituents, which his did unstintingly. He was always forwarding their advantage. I suppose that we disagreed on almost every political issue we ever discussed, but it is an honour to recall his service to the people whom I now represent.
This Bill is, in many respects, non-controversial. One aspect which particularly engages my attention and receives my support is that it seems to be safeguarding the local involvement in education. The trouble that I find with most debates on education is that it is much easier to discuss the theory than the practice. The strongest influences in education are the state of the buildings, the quality of the staff and the encouragement of pupils in their homes. These are essentially specific, detailed and local matters. It is, therefore, of great importance that we should give maximum emphasis to local opinion in matters concerning education.
I am glad that this Bill recognises, to some extent, the importance of local involvement. It makes clear that public notice will now be required and local objections may now be given where changes in the character of a school are involved. This, I think, is good. However, as I think was said earlier, the important thing will not so much be the legal safeguards which will be operated as a result of this Bill, but the attitude of mind which will govern the administration of education under the law.
One thing of which we can be sure is that quite small groups of people are affected by decisions in education. We should not, therefore, concern ourselves simply with the numbers of people involved; but with the local susceptibilities on quite a narrow scale.
This Bill arises out of the Enfield situation. I will not go into that again. One thing which struck me about the Enfield affair was that the activities of the parents were motivated by a feeling of frustration in that decisions were being rushed through and they were not, therefore, able to play a meaningful part in the future plans of the schools involved. To some extent, this feeling exists in Waltham Forest, where both the Minister's constituency and my own are situated. There have been many dis-

cussions, but they have always been in the nature of trying to wring minor concessions from a predetermined plan rather than a debate on the question: What form should secondary education take in this borough bearing in mind its peculiarities, its resources, and its traditions?
I ask hon. Members opposite to believe that when I speak of delay and tireless discussion about schemes of comprehensive education, it is not from a desire to kill them off. The Minister last Thursday said that there was a general tide in favour of comprehensive education. I think he is probably right. I doubt the wisdom of this in many respects, but I accept it. However. I can see no great case for rushing. There is not enough public interest in education.

Mrs. Renée Short: Nonsense.

Mr. Silvester: I think it is true that there is not enough public interest in education, or at least we can agree that we would like more of it. If we rush too much we may damage any enthusiasm which has been aroused, and demoralise those people who devote trouble and time to education. This is something we should seriously seek to avoid.
There is another danger in rushing. We cannot over-emphasise the importance of established schools for the tradition of education in the localities in which they are situated. For many people—particularly working class families and their children—the schools which have existed over a large number of years have been their first major contact with the importance of education. The parental support which some of these schools get is a very real factor in the enthusiasm which parents can give to their children and to their educational development. New schools will in time develop just that same support—I would not suggest otherwise—but it seems to be a danger to try and do this in one go over the whole of the local authority area. There are advantages in going slowly.
There are plenty of cases where urgency is required in education. Nursery schools in high flats is one. An understanding of what to do with the extra year when the school-leaving age is raised is another. If the Minister would like to celebrate my


maiden speech with an act of generosity, I can suggest some capital works in Walthamstow, West which we should be delighted to have.
What I am trying to make clear about rushing is that, even if one is a convinced supporter of comprehensive education, there can be nothing but good to come out of a state of mind which will permit one to take it at a more realistic pace. The corollary is that if one goes at a more measured pace and does not stimulate local offence, it may be necessary to recognise that, for a period of years at least, the organisation of secondary education may not be uniform over a whole local government area.
The Minister's reactions to the I.L.E.A. proposal will be interesting, because this is just such a proposal in which comprehensive, grammar, junior and senior high schools and some other secondary schools, and, I believe, sixth form colleges, are planned to subsist together. I believe that is possible. I do not believe that there will necessarily be any administrative chaos.
It will be recalled that in 1965 in the I.L.E.A. it was possible for parents to have a free choice of the schools to which they wanted their children to go. I understand that it was possible for the authority to place 85 per cent, of the children in the schools of their first choice. That was arrived at by parents and teachers discussing the matter together. There is a lot more sense than people give credit for in the way in which parents approach the education of their children.
I have taken up the time of the House long enough. I am very glad that this Bill has been brought forward. It will certainly have my support. I would add that, in the carrying out of this massive programme of reform of secondary education, we should be prepared to accept concessions to local feelings both in the matter of the speed with which we take it forward and the willingness to accept variety in the forms of education in local authority areas, at least for a certain period of time.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. John Forrester: I am pleased to have the honour of following the hon. Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Silvester). I am

sure that the House joins me in congratulating him on a most interesting maiden speech. He is obviously well versed in the matters which he has brought to our attention, and he has given us much food for thought, even though some of my hon. Friends would not agree with everything that he said. The hon. Gentleman referred to his constituency and paid tribute to his predecessor, who, I am sure, was well respected on both sides of the House and served his constituents with great distinction. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman's remarks will be remembered by those who listened to him and by those who read them. We hope that he will join in these debates on many occasions in the future.
I would like to turn away from the main issue of Enfield and all the surrounding issues and address my remarks to how some of the changes in the character of schools will affect the primary sector of education and to express some fears about this.
We tend to think in terms of changes of school buildings between secondary, grammar and comprehensive schools, and to overlook the effect which this may have on the primary schools. The Plowden Committee suggested that the primary school sector should range from 5 to 12 instead of from 5 to 11. This will mean that in many local education authority areas the main burden of raising the school-leaving age to 16 will fall not on the secondary schools but on the infant schools. This will be especially so with local education authorities such as that at Stoke-on-Trent, which has embraced the sixth form college approach to a comprehensive secondary system of education.
If a purpose-built sixth form college is erected, with a four-year course, as now, in the secondary school, the effect will be that a number of secondary school buildings will become surplus to requirements. One cannot imagine that the new glass and concrete palaces will be those which will be discarded by education authorities, but rather that a number of the smaller, older type of secondary schools which have outlived their usefulness will be put on the market. Local authorities will have to decide whether to sell these buildings, to lease them, or to use them in some other sector of the education service in their cities or boroughs.
The primary school of the future, with a four-year course, although with a different age range from that which now exists, could be affected from the point of view of accommodation, because it is this type of school which is already overcrowded and understaffed. I shall be interested to see whether an 11 to 12 year class in the new middle school will qualify for a teacher-pupil ratio of 1 to 30, or whether it will have to come down to the primary standard of 1 to 40. It will be an interesting exercise, to which we look forward. If it is the former, with an increase in the school population, more accommodation will be needed in tie primary schools.
These schools are not unused to receiving second-hand furniture and equipment, and perhaps they will not be unduly perturbed if they are expected to receive secondhand buildings as well. Although we in the primary school sector believe that education is like one big family and that a good family shares its belongings, we object to being looked on as the poor relation who must live off the charity of its elders, or perhaps even receive crumbs from the rich man's table.
The infants' school will be expected to provide full three-year courses. This means that they will need even more accommodation, as they will bear the main brunt of raising the school-leaving age. The extra accommodation may come from secondary schools which are no longer required, and approval for this will have to be sought from the Minister under the terms of this Bill. In the past the temptation has been to say, "This will do for the primary schools. They will have to manage until we can afford to give them something better". I hope that the Minister will resist any attempt by local authorities to build up superior accommodation for the secondary sector of education, at the expense of the primary school, and will not allow any old building to be designated a primary school because a secondary school no longer wants it. I know that my right hon. Friend will forgive my suspicion, but it has been acquired after many years in primary schools and watching them fall further and further behind their secondary brothers.
I wonder whether, in fixing its targets for raising the school-leaving age, my right hon. Friend's Department based

its calculations on what it expected from Plowden and concentrated its efforts on the primary sector, or whether we are catering for new secondary accommodation which may not be needed but which will release these older buildings on which the Minister's decision will be required at some time in the future.
I am not convinced that the Government or local authorities are paying other than lip-service to the cause of parity between the primary and the secondary sphere. I know that it is a comparatively short time since the introduction of the Plowden Report. I know, too, that the neglect of 20 years in the primary sector cannot be righted in a matter of 20 months, but the primary schools would like real evidence of the good will and intentions of the Government and local authorities in this direction. I think that the ideal opportunity for this was lost during the last salary negotiations, which, incidentally, came after Plowden. It became clear then that the powers that be did not recognise the very strong feeling in the schools amongst the teachers against the injustice of the primary-secondary differential, and it has taken this unprecedented action by the teachers to make this point stick. It is for these reasons that I want the Minister to show great wisdom and discretion in using his powers under Section 7(1,c) of the 1948 Education Act, as it will be amended by the Bill.
According to the Press, my right hon. Friend has announced that there will be cuts in public expenditure. No doubt everyone could suggest areas in which cuts might be made, and we could all sit down and agree to differ about our suggestions. In the past the need to control public expenditure in the interests of the national economy has been to the detriment of the primary sector. I appeal to the Minister not to let any emergency work in the same way in the future. Suffer we will in the primary schools if we must, but let us suffer together, and suffer equally.

5.9 p.m.

Mr. Fergus Montgomery: I am delighted to be the first hon. Member on this side of the House to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Silvester) on his able maiden speech. I am sure that we all enjoyed listening to him, and look


forward to hearing him again on many occasions.
It is with some trepidation that I rise to speak, because although since my return to the House I have spoken during proceedings in Committee, this is the first time that I have taken part in a Second Reading debate.
To make one's maiden speech is one of the worst ordeals which one can undergo and I can assure hon. Members that to make a second maiden speech on a return trip is just as agonising. I have been very lucky, because for five years I had the honour to represent Newcastle, East and I was very happy there. Apparently, in 1964 the electors were not as happy with me as I was with them and I had to go. Earlier this year, the people of Brierley Hill took a chance on me and I have become a Midlander. I will live in the constituency, not just to help me in my constituency work, but because I have found such friendship and honesty there that I want to live among the people I represent.
Brierley Hill is an enormous constituency, with 87,000 electors, which is growing all the time. It has an enormous industrial area, great new housing estates, a commuter belt of people who work in the Black Country and live in more pleasant surroundings, and an agricultural area. It is a microcosm, with just about everything. I pay my tribute to my predecessor, the late John Talbot, whose sudden death caused so much shock to so many people. He represented the constituency for seven years and did an enormous amount during that time to help the people whom he represented.
I wanted to speak on a subject related to education, because for nine years I taught in State schools. Having taken the Bill home to read, I began to wonder whether I had been well—advised, since I found it almost unintelligible. I wondered whether my faculties had deteriorated or whether the draftsmen were much brighter than the common man—

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Miss Alice Bacon): That certainly is not so. We are all in the same boat over this.

Mr. Montgomery: I am glad to hear that, because the more I read, the less I felt I understood.
The Bill was undoubtedly conceived because of the Enfield case. Writing in Education Sir William Alexander said:
 This Enfield Bill, as it will come to be called, gives effect to the promise made by the Secretary of State, which was that he would not appeal against the interlocutory injunctions granted by the Court …
This comes about because of the valiant fight of the Enfield parents. I do not agree with the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu) who felt that it was all the parents' fault that there was trouble in Enfield. Had it not been for their fight, we should not have this legislation, because, by their actions and their determination, they showed that the rights of parents have to be heeded. Practically every hon. Member will agree with that.
The Government have only themselves to blame. I do not blame the present Secretary of State, because he was not in charge at the time of the issue of Circular 10/65, which is one of the root causes of the trouble and the political bitterness in education today. I deplore this, because, as far as possible, education should not be a political subject. That circular asked local education authorities to prepare a completely new secondary school system within a year, but without any extra money.
Some people are completely opposed to comprehensive schools—we must face this fact—but an enormous number of people are opposed to getting what they call comprehensive education "on the cheap."They are perfectly happy about purpose-built comprehensive schools serving an area. What they are deeply unhappy about is having linked together two schools, perhaps one or two miles apart, which are then called a comprehensive school. Circular 10/65 was a thoroughly bad circular and the party opposite will soon realise the wisdom of the saying" Act in haste: repent at leisure", although, since my return, I have seen little sign of repentance by hon. Members opposite.
The Bill comes about because of the actions of the Enfield parents. They were astonished at the speed with which the local council and the Department moved. They were not the only ones, because anyone who has ever dealt with Government Departments knows that they usually take a very long time to


act. Then, the London Borough Council elections were postponed until May of next year. After the losses inflicted on the party opposite in April and May of this year, one realises why. I can assure them, however, that the holocaust has only been delayed and we will wait with interest to see how the people give judgment on the way in which they were deprived of their right to vote this year.
In view of all this, the Enfield parents felt that their ony recourse was to fight their battle in the courts. The courts decided that, for eight schools in Enfield, no public notices in accordance with Section 13 of the 1944 Education Act had been issued, because the Council said that the Minister had advised it that no notices were required for those schools. As Lord Denning rightly said:
 The advice of the Minister is not law.
Now we have this Bill, aimed at clearing up the confusion. If it becomes law, it will concede the point raised by the Enfield parents and will give parents and local government electors the right to lodge objections to any proposals to make changes in the character and size of existing schools by requiring specific notices of such proposals under Section 13 although they do not constitute the establishment of new schools.
The Bill goes even further, because Clause 1(4) proposes that it should operate retrospectively to 1st April, 1945, which was when the 1944 Act came into effect. Generally, I am opposed to retrospective legislation, which worries me, but I agree in this case with the Minister and with the editorial in Education on 1st September, 1967:
 What about authorities which have already done as Enfield proposed without issuing notices?…Will they be challenged at a district audit for spending money on maintained schools which have been established illegally?
In fairness, to safeguard these people, who acted in good faith, this legislation must certainly be retrospective.
Clause 2 deals with standards of school building. The 1944 Act contained the phrase, "… having regard to the shortage of labour or materials ". Of course, in the immediate post-war years, shortage of labour and materials was of great importance, but times have changed and it was no doubt right to delete those words and insert instead:

… having regard to the need to control public expenditure in the interests of the national economy…
This makes sense, because we can spend on education only what the national economy can afford. If we can strengthen the economy, we will be able to afford more, and I am very worried whether the present economic crisis will mean that we will not be able to spend sufficient to keep the expanding educational building programme which the country needs.
I return in conclusion to my complaint—it is obviously that of the Minister of State as well—that I found the Bill almost unintelligible. I was consoled not only by what the right hon. Lady said but by the fact that almost every educational journal has complained about this. I would commend to the right hon. Gentleman an extract from the current edition of The Times Educational Supplement, which states:
 A study of the new Education Bill has given rise to strong observations from the National Secular Society. 'The least literate of Ministries,' it says, ' has now produced a Bill which will be intelligible only to minds that have never emerged from fetid bureaucratic cellars'.
Since I found it unintelligible to begin with, that extract raised my morale no end because for once I was on the side of the angels.

5.20 p.m.

Mr. Christopher Price: Anybody who has seen the Department of Education and Science may have some sympathy with the National Secular Society when it describes the Bill as having emerged from "fetid bureaucratic cellars ", for the accommodation into which we put our education civil servants is some of the very worst in Government Departments.
My first comments must be about the Enfield judgments. It has been wisely said that the Bill is unintelligible, but I suggest that it is a picture of clarity compared with some of Mr. Justice Donaldson's judgments which he handed down last summer in his various pronouncements about Enfield Grammar School, particularly about building regulations. It is not right or proper in this place to criticise judgments made in the High Court, but I believe that those judgments were such that it was perfectly right that a Bill should have been immediately introduced to clear up a lot


of muddle which was created simply by the very perverse decisions of Mr. Justice Donaldson, which I do not—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): Order. It cannot be in order to accuse a judge of the High Court of giving a perverse decision. I must ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw that adjective.

Mr. Price: I immediately withdraw any implication that I should not have made. Suffice to say that those judgments needed a Bill immediately to clear them up, and that many of the misunderstandings that need clearing up arose out of those judgments. I say no more than that and, before I tread further on any High Court toes, I turn to some other aspects of the matter.
I accept the Bill, somewhat reluctantly, because I feel that a new education Measure, and a far wider one, is urgently needed. However, I fear that the Bill will only postpone still further into the dim and distant middle or late 'seventies the day when we actually get our new education Measure. All this uncertainty about Enfield has been created because the 1944 Act is based on schools and not on the needs of children. It is so based because it was a necessary, I believe magnificent, compromise between the Church and the State, a compromise which no other country in Europe has succeeded in creating. To that extent it was a magnificent Act.
Because the 1944 Act was so utterly obsessed with the rights of particular schools to exist in the state in which they had always existed, it created—and, as long as it is the basis of the law on education, it will continue to create—constant difficulties. I therefore ask the Minister to ensure that this Measure in no way postpones the preparation of a new and comprehensive education Bill to bring the whole of our education scene, from the infants and nursery schools right up to higher education, up to date.
In this Bill the word "character" has been more rigidly defined—again, under pressure from Mr. Justice Donaldson in his High Court judgments—than ever before. I regret this because the word "character" appeared in the 1944 Act for one purpose only; to assuage the fears of Nonconformist and Church of England headmasters that their schools would be

taken over as county schools by the State and their religious character destroyed. The word "Character" in the 1944 Act was never intended to apply to where a school was a grammar, comprehensive or secondary modern school. One can go further. There was a lot of discussion before the 1944 Act was passed about whether or not the definitions of "secondary school" should be included in the Act. Because of the efforts of a very far-sighted band of Labour hon. Members in Parliament during the war years, all mention of different types of secondary school was kept out of the Act, which finally simply referred to "secondary schools ".
In the light of that, to introduce in a new Bill, more than 20 years later, the word "character" as being an important element of a secondary school—an element needing a tremendous amount of discussion—is something quite alien to the ideas of the 1944 Act. It is perverting the purpose of the meaning of the word "character" compared with the meaning it held when it first came into that Act.
The effect of the Bill will be to make the issuing of Section 13 notices far more numerous than before. This does not matter all that much; indeed, I do not know how many hon. Members have seen a Section 13 notice. It is a piece of scruffy paper written in unintelligible language—far more unintelligible than this Measure—and three copies of it must be displayed by the authority. Each of the three copies must be placed in a different place. One must appear on the door of the school.
I recall that a Section 13 notice was issued in respect of the school at which I was teaching. The school had been enlarged, and so on, and the notice was issued. It being quite a large secondary school, with 25 doors, the headmaster had to decide on which door to stick it. Eventually he pasted it up on one of the doors, but as a result of a cold snap with some snow, in addition to some larking around on the part of the students, the notice did not stay in place for more than three days.
It is usual to place the second copy on the notice board in the education office. A mixed batch of notices always appears on these boards, including official notices about newspaper deliveries, health clinics and so on. The Section 13 notice


was stuck on this board, but it quickly became covered by other notices and I doubt very much whether many people saw it, let alone read it.
The third copy must appear in the form of a single insertion in the columns of the local newspaper. Normally, the notice appears in the column containing law announcement; and I doubt very much if it is noticed. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle) will agree that the vast majority —probably well over 95 per cent.—of the Section 13 notices issued have never been objected to, the reason being that nobody, or virtually nobody, ever sees or reads them.
If we are to have a Section 13 notice procedure, it might have been a good idea in this Measure to have made it more sensible and intelligent, perhaps by ensuring that the headmasters and staff are brought into the job of consulting parents. To assume that to insist on local authorities publishing Section 13 notices is to give parents enormous democratic rights is an entirely false assumption. Local education authorities which want to avoid trouble—this implies to the vast majority of them—know how and when to go about issuing these notices to make sure that the vast majority of the notices are never objected to.
I do not think this will make much difference one way or the other in satisfying people that parents' rights are being catered for. It will make it much more difficult for a local education authority which is fulfilling the national policy for education—that is, comprehensive education. It is the Minister's duty under the 1944 Act to lay down a national policy for education. It will make it more difficult for those authorities to operate because of the nuisance of issuing these notices. Sometimes, because of the way of issuing the notices, important plans may be held up for six months, but this will not affect authorities which are defying the national policy for education and do not intend to do anything about their secondary schools but to leave them as they are.
No one expected this Bill to force authorities to comply with the national policy as laid down. It is important that we should note that this is the effect of the Bill. It makes it all the more urgent to legislate quickly to make clear that we

have a national policy for education and that authorities should follow it. The 1944 Act gave the Minister, now the Secretary of State, very strong and stringent powers over education. It says:
 to secure the effective execution by local education authorities, under his control and direction, of the national policy for providing a varied and comprehensive educational service in every area.
Those are very stringent and wide-ranging powers to give any Minister in any field.
In the days of the 1944 Act, it was assumed that it would be very easy to exercise those powers because the system of percentage grants operated and enabled previous Ministers very quickly to bring rebel local education authorities to heel. They could simply be threatened that they could not get any more for current expenditure on any project which the Minister did not like. It was very easy in those days to direct education from the centre. Ever since 1958, when the Conservatives gave away that central power of direction by bringing in the general grant for local education authorities, it has been difficult for the Minister or the Secretary of State to exercise his powers under the 1944 Act. That is another reason why we urgently need legislation to enable him to carry out powers over which he has not financial control but which were used before 1958. That is one more reason why I hope that we shall have a far more comprehensive Education Bill in the near future.
A lot of pure hypocrisy is spoken about building standards and about not wanting comprehensive schools to be started in sub-standard buildings. The brutal truth is that we have a lot of sub-standard buildings in our education system as it stands. The argument we hear from hon. Members opposite tends to be that substandard buildings are all right for secondary modern schools which exist at the moment and have existed for 20 years in them. The moment we try to shift children about, often by producing a two-tier comprehensive system whereby every child has a few years' life in a modern building, we have a tremendous howl about inadequate premises and sub-standard buildings. Those premises have been there for 20 years and hon. Members opposite have made no complaint about them.

Mr. Montgomery: The hon. Member has got it wrong. I was not complaining about this. My right hon. Friend and I were complaining about having two schools a distance apart and saying that that comprised a comprehensive school.

Mr. Price: That was not the point I was arguing about. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth raised the problem about putting comprehensive schools in sub-standard buildings. No doubt we shall hear of this again. We have a stock of buildings for secondary schools. We can add to and improve that stock as fast as national resources allow. How we arrange the children in those buildings does not either increase or diminish the stock of good or bad buildings. It very often makes a far fairer and juster distribution of the experience which children have in one sort of building or another.

5.36 p.m.

Mr. John Pardoe: Disraeli once said:
 I marvel at my moderation.
I marvel at the moderation in which the Opposition have conducted themselves in this debate, bearing in mind that only a few weeks ago the right hon. Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) was proclaiming that a vital issue of principle was at stake, an essential freedom was being trodden into the dust, and that it was a matter of greatest importance which had led to the winning of the West Walthamstow by-election. I thought it all nonsense then, and I do now.
We have seen a complete metamorphosis in the Opposition, which has decided to support retrospective legislation which will allow many more such schemes as that of Enfield to go through and to legalise many which have gone through unchallenged so far. If the Enfield scheme was an attack on liberty, I ask the Opposition why they do not think this Bill is an attack on liberty. I can only suppose that the change has taken place because the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle) has managed to get a little sanity into the proceedings.
I support the Bill wholeheartedly. There are one or two reservations I make, but I support it basically because it will make our system of government more

efficient and will enable the Secretary of State to administer the educational system more efficiently. It will strengthen local democracy. I hope to see eventually an overhaul of the relationship of central and local government as a result of the reform of local government. I hope that will come about in the not too distant future. We may need a new Education Bill then to sort out the problems which arise, and it may be better to leave them until that time.
I want to see a devolution of these powers which are essential to local democracy, but until that time this Bill is welcome. It is wrong to hold up good education schemes against the wishes of the majority merely because of pressure groups. I would be the last to say that pressure groups should not be allowed to make their point known, but they must not be allowed totally to frustrate the purposes of properly elected local democracy.
The Bill goes on to make some further provisions for consultation of parents and teachers. This is of immense importance, as indeed the Plowden Report emphasised. I want to see much more participation in decisions, not only in education but in every other field, by as many people as possible. I hope that the Secretary of State will give some thought to possible new methods whereby consultation can be made meaningful.
Unfortunately, far too often in my experience, consultation has meant a town meeting to which the local chief education officer together with the chairman of the education committee come down and deliver statements, and the public go away with no feeling of having debated the issue or of having participated in consultation. Some thought needs to be given to new methods by which the public can participate in such discussion.
My reservations are primarily concerned with Clause 2. I do not hold for one moment that we should wait upon ideal conditions in buildings, before going over to non-selective systems. I believe, other things being equal, that education in a non-selective school always will be better than that in a selective school.
There are many schemes which will improve the quality of education, even


though the buildings will still be substandard, but it is essential to ensure that the new school will not in any way be inferior in its buildings to the existing schools which it replaces.
Hon. Members have referred to the lack of cash. This is one reason why we have to talk about sub-standard buildings and accept the fact that there are some. One other reason why there are sub-standard buildings and why there will remain sub-standard buildings for very much longer than is necessary is the decision to raise the school-leaving age in 1970. I believe that many schools after 1970 will be inadequate in their buildings because of this decision. Many schools which could be made adequate shortly after 1970 will remain inadequate for a further decade or so.
Because of this decision, in my constituency two towns—Bude and Wade-bridge—which passionately want to go ever to non-selective education, will remain selective for the best part of 10 years, unless pressure which can be brought to bear upon the Government makes them change their mind.
There is a two-party conspiracy here. We shall never get this system changed unless both the major parties are prepared jointly to change their minds. Education is caught in a party political trap. Because the Conservative Party made the decision, the Labour Government feel that they cannot go back on it because, if they did, they would be accused by the Conservative Opposition of having failed to keep Conservative promises. I believe that the Secretary of State and the right hon. Member for Handsworth know deep down that the act of raising the leaving age cannot be performed without seriously endangering educational standards.
What about the primary schools? What about the sub-standard buildings? What about the kids in classes of 40 or more? Are not these more important than raising the leaving age? I believe that they are. I believe that the Government should recognise that. I believe that the Tory Opposition should also recognise that.
The Secretary of State's predecessor said something to the effect that any back pedalling by the Government on this issue would cause widespread dismay in common rooms. I do not know which

commons rooms he has been in. In the common rooms which I have visited in the last few months it would not be widespread dismay. It would be widespread relief which would be felt as a result of a change in this decision. Therefore, I appeal to the Secretary of Slate and to the Conservative Party to be sensible about it.

Mr. Christopher Price: The hon. Gentleman has spoken of a two-party conspiracy. I understand that the Liberal Party is against this now. How much concern does the Liberal Party feel for the 15-year-old school leavers, mainly, centred in the North and the North-East, who, if the leaving age is not raised, will be deprived of the education which they would otherwise receive?

Mr. Pardoe: They will not be deprived of anything that can meaningfully be called education. Keeping children on for one year in schools which are themselves not adequate—that is what will happen—will not better them one little bit. There is a real danger that many of them will become "dead end kids", because they will be frustrated by the experience of an extra year in schools which are inferior. That is why I am against this.
In any case, if we go on with the process towards comprehensive education, it very largely solves the problem. Seventy per cent, of all children in comprehensive schools are now staying on the extra year or more. Therefore, if we hasten through this process and spend money on reorganising secondary education on non-selective lines, we will to a very large extent cure the problem.
I offer an alternative which is substantially cheaper. I hope that both the Secretary of State and the right hon. Member for Handsworth will consider this. I say that we should substitute the decision to raise the leaving age by 1970 by compulsory part-time further education up to the age of 18. I believe that we could do this for less money. We could do it with exit ting facilities to a very large extent. It would be within the terms of the Education Act, 1944, which made provision for it. I believe that it would be a better system altogether.
Finally, the Secretary of State is being given increased powers by the Bill. By increasing his powers we also increase


his social responsibility. I am sure he realises that he will have even greater responsibility for ensuring that these increased powers are used well, for the betterment of education and for the benefit of children. I hope that, where it is necessary for him to use his new powers, he will use them to ensure excellent standards of education.

5.47 p.m.

Mr. Roland Moyle: I appreciate the necessity for the introduction of the Bill, but I do not wish to enter into the controversy about the maverick activities of the Enfield Parents Association and whether they really brought about the introduction of the Bill or otherwise. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has his story and I am prepared to believe him.
One of the important things is that we must not throw the baby out with the bathwater. One of the contributions which the hon. Member for Brierley Hill (Mr. Montgomery) made and with which I had some sympathy was his statement that the Bill is well nigh unintelligible to the layman. In matters of education I hold myself to be a layman, but I was fortified in deciding to press the point I have in mind by the general agreement accorded to the hon. Gentleman's remark by both sides of the House.
I seek an assurance from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that there is nothing in the Bill which will prevent my constituents from exercising, if they wish, the same control over the maverick activities of those who now control the Inner London Education Authority, as they previously exercised. If my right hon. Friend cannot give me that assurance, I ask him at least to assure me that there is nothing in the Bill that will prevent him, if he so wishes, from exercising a firm control over the maverick activities of that body, as it has emerged since last May.
I use that adjective to describe the Authority's activities advisedly. I believe that we can know people by the company they keep. I got to know Mr. Christopher Chataway as a very worthy opponent at the General Election. When Mr. Chataway sat on the Treasury Bench and the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle) used to

hold his hand, he made intelligent noises from time to time. I very much regret to say that he has fallen amongst bad company since. I very much regret to have to say that there has been a continual deterioration in political character ever since last May when he assumed his present office.
If I may give an example of the sort of thing I have in mind, I have in my constituency Brockley County School, which is a good grammar school. If one accepts the philosophy which gives rise to grammar schools, one can have very little objection indeed to the existence of Brockley County School. But the time came for reorganisation of large areas of secondary education in London, and the proposal was made by the previous Inner London Education Authority, which existed until last May, to merge this grammar school into a comprehensive school.
I was glad to hear the intervention by the hon. Member for Brierley Hill in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Christopher Price). The hon. Gentleman said that there could be no objection to purpose-built comprehensive schools and that what he and his right hon. and hon. Friends were opposed to were botched-up comprehensive schools. I can assure them that, even if there were such a thing as a botched-up comprehensive scheme—and I am not entirely convinced of it—they could not possibly object to the comprehensive scheme which was to succeed Brockley County School. Near the existing Brockley County School there was a vacant site, and there was to be a purpose-built comprehensive school on that site for the pupils of Brockley County School and some other schools in the area.
There were people misled by right hon. and hon. Members opposite before last May, by the thought that, if they voted for their friends so that they became the government of London, their grammar schools would be restored to them, as the phrase often goes. Then, following the election and the return of the Conservative Party to the government of the Inner London Education Authority, a brutal shock awaited many of their erstwhile supporters. The grammar school was not restored. Instead, we have a scheme for the truncation of the grammar school and the substitution therefor of a sixth form college.
I shall not prolong the debate unnecessarily by entering into the pros and cons of the philosophy of sixth form colleges. But it seems to me that to convert an existing good grammar school into a sixth form college cannot be done by any means other than those which will cause the upmost upheaval to the pupils actually in the school at a given time. Some pupils will be going through the school while the whole character of the school which they entered is changed around them. Either they will find forms falling away behind them, the number of pupils going through their normal education being sharply cut away and the school itself gradually becoming vacant until the time comes to convert it fully to a sixth form college, or, on the other hand, they will find themselves gradually swamped by a number of older boys or girls, as the case may be.
It is for this reason that the voters of Lewisham are opposed to this scheme, the parents of Lewisham who are involved are opposed to it, and the community generally is opposed to it. I oppose it, too.
The chairman of the Inner London Education Authority came to Lewisham Town Hall to hold a public meeting and consult parents and people who are interested. The parents have said, in effect, that they want none of this scheme for a sixth form college at Brockley County School. In passing, I can tell my right hon. Friend that the people at that meeting have not opted for the original Labour I.L.E.A. scheme for a comprehensive school on the site near Brockley County School.
Everyone who went to that meeting came away with the firm conclusion that the Inner London Education Authority, having listened to the representations of all in Lewisham who are interested in this matter, intends to go straight ahead with the scheme, which it has put out, for the conversion of this excellent grammar school into a sixth form college, in contravention of the wishes of Conservatives in Lewisham who wanted the restoration of their grammar school, in contravention of the wishes of Labour supporters in Lewisham who want the comprehensive scheme to go ahead, and in contravention of the generally expressed view of a mixed body of the

public who, also, want the comprehensive scheme to go ahead.
There is, therefore, general opposition to the scheme, and it is for this reason that I hope that we may look to my right hon. Friend, when the times comes, to restore the voice of sanity to the subject of Lewisham's secondary education.

5.55 p.m.

Mr. W. R. van Straubenzee: I hope that the House has not been as bored as I have been by that constituency speech of the hon. Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. Moyle). I shall return to the subject matter of the Bill. It would have been refreshing if the hon. Gentleman had read the Bill beforehand. If he had, he would have realised that it does not touch the situation into which he went in such depth. However, lest it should, conceivably, be thought that his view of the changed Inner London Education Authority is a general one, I shall briefly give my own experience as a chairman of governors within the Inner London Education Authority area.

Mrs. Renée Short: I am wondering why the hon. Gentleman should have complained about my hon. Friend's speech.

Mr. van Straubenzee: The experience which I am about to give does not arise in my constituency. That is the difference. I have nothing whatever to gain constituency-wise.
As chairman of governors of such a school, I was faced with a proposal from the former Inner London Education Authority which involved the reorganisation of the school together with two others in South London, each a mile away from the other. We were faced with proposals which would have resulted in a school in three parts, each one mile from the other—a triangle of buildings. The hon. Member for Lewisham, North does not think that such a botched-up scheme exists. It does.
My charge against the party opposite is that, by this kind of botched-up scheme, the direct forerunner of this Bill, incidentally, it has done immeasurable harm to the very cause of comprehensive schooling in practice. This is the practical experience of people who have had to do these things on the ground. Lest


anyone should say that this is only a passing phase, I can tell the House further, basing myself strictly on practical experience, of what officials have very frankly said. I think that the hon. Gentleman and I would at least agree that, in terms of officials, the I.L.E.A. probably has the highest standard of any local education authority. The officials dealing very frankly with myself and others have assured me that such a botched-up scheme could last for no less than 20 years. I ask the hon. Gentleman to envisage the attitude of mind of parents, staff, administrators and governors faced with a project of that kind.
When history comes to be written, it will be said that one of the biggest mistakes ever made in education was Circular 10/65—the insistence that, within a year, reorganisation schemes should be submitted to the Secretary of State, but with not an extra brass farthing to pay for them. I am sure that, when the time comes, this will be looked back on as one of the most unwise acts of educational statesmanship ever perpetrated by a Secretary of State.
The situation we now have arises directly out of Enfield, though, as the Secretary of State reminded us with great frankness, it is not in one sense directly relevant to Enfield. It arises out of Enfield because, plainly, the Bill would not have been before us otherwise. We are, in a sense, wasting valuable Parliamentary time in dealing with what has been received by some hon. Members opposite with disappointment. We are spending useful Parliamentary time on a comparatively small and detailed Bill.
The hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) has now left the Chamber. What a change there is in Liberal hon. Members since they got a kick up the backside from their own supporters! It is very refreshing to see them enlighten our debate. I am sorry to refer to the hon. Gentleman in his absence, but he had plainly not understood either that the Bill is the Little Tich that it is, or that it does not deal essentially with the Enfield problem. What it does is to strengthen the position of parents, and that is why it would be very surprising if there were opposition to it from our benches. When it first peeped its nose out of the stable I thought that it was

conceivably a horse with a kick in it, in that it might contain provisions, about which we have sometimes heard from hon. Members opposite, to make recalcitrant authorities take steps in comprehensive education by compulsion. But that is not so. There have been some plaintive cries for such a Bill, but we do not find it here. That is why there is a general welcome on this side of the House.
I had better make it quite clear, since we all know how the electoral tide is running, that it will considerably strengthen the hand of a Conservative Secretary of State against a Socialist local authority which puts up a scheme that is unacceptable to him. It may have occurred to hon. Members opposite that that is another reason why, looking a year or two ahead, we shall be very happy to have it on the Statute Book.
Having been a bit waspish with the Secretary of State, who does not look very worried about such waspishness as I have directed at him, I should like to pay him a very warm compliment. I suspect, knowing a little about the workings of these matters, that he may have had a bit of a struggle to persuade his legal advisers to allow us to have Schedule 3, that is, to have the various Sections of previous Acts set out with the Amendments in heavy type, so that we can see what they will say when the Bill becomes an Act. I have no idea whether he did have that struggle, but if so I warmly commend him on his initiative. In any case he is responsible. I hope that he will, as the long-standing student of government that we know him to be, pass the concept on to some of his right hon. colleagues. It would be particularly helpful, for example, in the Finance Bill— though I must not stray out of order. I want him to know that his doing this has not passed unnoticed. It is very helpful, particularly when we are dealing with a simple and human matter in education.
But I part company with him on retrospection, and clearly I also part company in emphasis with my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hands-worth (Sir E. Boyle). We may have chances of debating this in more detail if I am selected to serve on the Committee. I do not like retrospective legislation—period. I believe retrospective legislation is not offensive in principle.


I admittedly see a distinction in applying in a backward direction a law that is different from what everybody believed it to be at the time, as compared with stating the law as having been what everyone thought that it was. I do not generally care for backward looks by the House in legislation, and I cannot believe that it is necessary in this case. When one tries to consider what cases may be affected, surely one cannot see any case where it is now likely that an application for an injunction, for example, could be granted? I see the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Mr. R. C. Mitchell) nodding. He has great experience of these matters. Perhaps on another occasion we shall have an opportunity of considering this, but he must put up a very good case to persuade me on retrospection. I do not believe that it is a good practice for the House, and, if we are to agree to it, it must be argued very powerfully. When my party were in Government, I did not care for retrospective legislation any the more because it came from us.
I believe that, broadly speaking, the provisions of the Bill are wise. There are some details which we shall want to consider more fully, particularly because, if educational opinion runs as it seems to be running, we shall be examining a considerable number of new kinds of reorganisation as time goes on. I was very disappointed by the intensely conservative view of a sixth form college taken by the hon. Member for Lewisham, North. I have attended almost every education debate since 1959, and they often run across party lines. I must spend the necessary 6d. or 1s. to buy the hon. Gentleman a recent excellent pamphlet en the issue written by Mr. Simon Jenkins, one of the ablest educational commentators. It is published by the Conservative Political Centre, but I know that that will not put the hon. Gentleman off.
If I am right—and I am attracted by the general concept—there will be a number of other such reorganisation schemes of a very fundamental nature which should be closely considered under the terms of the Bill. We should not allow ourselves to think merely in terms of comprehensive secondary education as we understand the phrase at present. If I am sure of anything, it is that local con-

ditions, backgrounds and traditions vary so much that it is very dangerous for either party in this dispute—I do not use the word "party" in a political sense —to seek to apply to every given circumstance a certain blanket solution. I have said before that it is a subject which above all others requires a certain degree of humility among Parliamentarians. We may not know all the answers. For that reason I welcome the powers which the Secretary of State—

Mr. Moyle: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not wish to be unfair. If he reads my speech he will find that I said that I did not want to enter into a discussion of the philosophy of sixth-form colleges as against other philosophies, and for that reason I deliberately confined my remarks to a particular aspect of the sixth-form college scheme which had been put before us in Lewisham.

Mr. van Straubenzee: I hope that I have not been unfair, and I do not think that I have. The hon. Gentlemen's objection was that at any one time there must be passing through the school a generation who will be, he feels, adversely affected by the institution of a sixth-form college. That is so, but it is also true of any other reorganisation scheme covered by the Bill. For example, it would also have been true of the scheme which I have mentioned.

Mr. Moyle: I am sorry that this is becoming a bit of a duologue, but I spoke of the specific case where an existing school was converted to a sixth-form college. I made no reference to any case where a sixth-form college might be specially built or provided in some other way.

Mr. van Straubenzee: I must avoid the temptation of carrying this discussion too far or we may both bore both sides of the House, but if the Selection Committee does the work which we hope it will do we may have ample opportunities to discuss at great length the merits of the case, so long as we are both in order.
Broadly, I approve of the powers proposed to be taken under the Bill. They are very different from what many people outside believe them to be, although they would never have come before the House but for the Secretary of


State's behaviour in the legal conflict. It was a most unhappy position for any Secretary of State to get himself into. But when he had got himself into it this was really the only thing he could do. I hope that we shall make it as easy for him as we reasonably can.

6.10 p.m.

Mrs. Renée Short: I cannot continue the bipartisan approach of the hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee). I do not agree with anything he said about the Bill. He was good at choosing adjectives and was, indeed, waspish, but I do not suppose that my right hon. Friend is worried much about that.
The Bill is overshadowed by considerations of the Enfield situation. Bearing in mind what I wish to say about conditions in another part of the country, I am surprised by the speech of the hon. Member for Brierley Hill (Mr. Montgomery) because, in the West Midlands, the education scene is reverberating with the misdeeds and suggestions being put forward by Walsall and Wolverhampton Borough Councils, which, unfortunately and alas, are now both Conservative controlled, and where established comprehensive schools are being undermined and destroyed by the Conservative education committees.
In April, 1966, there was a local government reorganisation in the West Midlands. Before then, the Staffordshire County Council, also Conservative controlled but surprisingly extremely intelligent about comprehensive schools, had built comprehensive schools in the area and has set up others. With the reorganisation, some of these areas, and, therefore, some of the schools, came into Wolverhampton County Borough and some went into Walsall.
Very soon after, the staffs of the existing comprehensive schools in the West Midlands met my right hon. Friend's predecessor and expressed their concern about what might happen if politically motivated men took control of the local authorities at the forthcoming local elections.

Mr. Montgomery: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Short: Not at this stage.
They expressed concern lest these men launched an attack on the comprehensive schools. Those fears are now being realised because last spring's local elections led to Wolverhampton Borough Council becoming Conservative controlled and the education committee has passed a resolution which gives parents in the area of the Smestow and Regis comprehensive schools the option to send their children to one of the several selective grammar schools which still exist in Wolverhampton and which the Conservatives are unwilling to change into comprehensive schools.
This has brought protests from the united teaching profession throughout the area—there is no argument about that. I have received deputations from teachers at the various schools and deputations sent by all the teachers. I have also received deputations of parents and have had a large number of letters. Meetings have been held in the comprehensive schools attended by between 400 and 500 parents and they passed resolutions condemning in effect the action of the local education authority.
When I asked my right hon. Friend last week what action he intended to take, he said that there was nothing he could do, that he had to act within the law as it was and that this was a matter for the local education authority. I hope, therefore, that, in the case of established comprehensive schools, the Bill will give him power to prevent local education authorities from destroying established and purpose-built comprehensive schools.
The Regis school was established 12 years ago. It was purpose-built and is internationally renowned. Visitors come from many other countries and from other parts of this country to see it. Its headmaster was knighted for services to education and no one in the area, I believe, supports the education committee in what it is proposing to do.
The chairman of the education committee has said that parents do not need to opt to send their children to selective grammar schools in the area but even if only a small percentage of the children in the area, as a matter of self-defence because the parents are uncertain about the future of the schools, are sent to the selective grammar schools, it will mean doubt generally about the standing of the comprehensive schools, their status


and educational achievement. If any of the leaders of the school community—any of the pace-setters—are withdrawn from any comprehensive school, this is undermining comprehensive education and the ideal behind the whole system. Therefore, it is essential that the nature of these schools and the area they serve should remain as they are.
There is also the question of the breach of faith to the parents who have sent their children to these comprehensive schools believing that they would get a good comprehensive education with all the advantages this brings and who are now finding that, in effect, the schools are likely to be changed unless the Secretary of State is empowered to intervene. These parents feel badly let down. Many of them were opponents of comprehensive schools but, since they have seen the advantages—educational, physical and menial—which have accrued to their children since then, they are now ardent supporters.
The hon. Member for Brierley Hill spoke about the valiant fight of parents in the Enfield area to protect their schools. What about the valiant fight of parents in the area served by the Regis and Smestow schools? Does not he support them? I am amazed that he did not say a word about that.

Mr. Montgomery: The hon. Lady is correct. This matter does also come within my constituency. If she were as diligent in her constituency as she is in mine the result would be seen at the next election, but if she wants to fight me in Brierley Hill, let her do so. I should welcome it. The Wolverhampton Borough Council, before the last local elections, was not controlled by apolitical people, but by a political party. Unfortunately, the Conservatives put in their election manifesto a pledge to allow selection or choice of schools—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must be brief. He has already made a speech.

Mrs. Short: I am not interested in representing Brierley Hill. The hon. Gentleman has nothing to fear from me. What he says about the election campaign of his supporters and party friends is so, but neither parents nor teachers who have the interests of education at heart

imagined that the Conservative majority would carry out these proposals in the way they have done—without one word of consultation either with parents or with teachers. This is why there is so much outcry, quite justifiably, against these proposals which will affect Regis and Smestow schools.
The position was different when the local authority was Labour controlled, because it was in the process of producing a scheme to present to the Secretary of State. It produced a "White Paper" and consulted all interested organisations, which were invited to submit their ideas. This is in contrast with what the Conservatives have done since they came to office.
This is the problem of established comprehensive schools, but now we have the problem of schools which were to become comprehensive under the council's proposals which are now likely to be prevented from becoming comprehensive unless my right hon. Friend insists that the original scheme goes through, and I am not certain whether the Bill gives him power to deal with this problem. In my constituency there are two schools which are due to become comprehensive. One is the Northicote School and the other consists of two schools built on the same site—none of this business about schools being two miles apart which the Opposition now find as their main objection to comprehensive schools —which were due to amalgamate to form one large 10-form entry comprehensive school.
The Conservative education committee has implemented a decision to reduce the intake to these schools so that there is a creaming off and selection in what was a comprehensive catchment area. There are now about 25 children of grammar school ability going to grammar schools in the centre of Wolverhampton. This has changed the nature of the area and I wonder whether my right hon. Friend is quite happy about Schedule 3(10), or whether something should be added about the territorial intake, or geographical area, or parental choice, to make sure that there are no loopholes in this legislation.
At a meeting of the grammar—Technical school, which is one half of the two schools which were to be the ten-form entry school in my constituency.


the Conservative chairman of the education committee was summoned to a simmering meeting of the staff to defend the indefensible proposals of this committee. The House may be interested to hear how he regards comprehensive education. He said:
 I have often tried to imagine the Comprehensive School like a big Department Store in which you can obtain all sorts of goods under one roof and which has a bargain basement of course, a fashion department on the top floor and it can cater for all tastes and pockets.
He also said, at the meeting of the education committee where this decision was made:
 The choice was whether to featherbed the comprehensives by allowing people to move away from them or whether to allow parents an element of choice.
If that is not hypocritical humbug in the extreme, I do not know what is. He regards comprehensive education as a commercial proposition like setting up and organising a department store, and that is the nadir of criticism.
This reference to freedom of choice is always brought in, but we know perfectly well that these proposals will bring back selection and set the clock back 20 years. We know that whether children go to grammar schools is not decided just as a matter of parental choice, but according to the choice of the authority, based on a selective examination.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to reassure me about the suggestion that the Schedule should be amended to ensure that proposals based on territorial intake will in future be absolutely cast iron.

6.24 p.m.

Mr. Ronald Bell: We have had a short and brisk debate and as it draws to an end I am left wishing that the Government's education policy were as crisp, relevant and attractive as some of the speeches we have listened to today, instead of being as diffuse, muddled and obscure as the Bill.
I want to refer particularly to my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, West (Mr. Silvester) who emerged with such distinction from the ordeal of his maiden speech. The whole House appreciated his graceful reference to his pre-

decessor, Mr. Redhead, and the combination of modesty of manner with confidence and competence in the materials which he handled. We shall certainly all look forward to hearing him again in debates on this and other subjects.
Obviously, the Opposition will not vote against a Bill which substantially is a memorial to the courage and persistence of the parents of Enfield; but one wishes that it were a more artistically satisfying memorial. One can spare a moment to be slightly sorry for the right hon. Gentleman who is only an ogre by inheritance, or perhaps one should say by continuance. His predecessor had the knock-about fun and left him with the bills, including this one. I would have had more sympathy for the right hon. Gentleman having to pick up his right hon. Friend's chestnuts if he had not, in an excess of repetitive folly, stuck his burnt finger back into the fire for three days, in almost the same place, and burned it again.
The Bill has no direct connection with the second battle of Enfield, but indirectly it reflects it by its reference to articles of government in paragraph (2) of the Schedule! Personally, I see no objection in principle to a change in articles of government which is bound up with a change in the character of the school and reflects it being made in the same process as the change itself. That is merely replacing two operations by one. But I see some objection—I do not put it higher than that—to empowering the Secretary of State to make such variations as appear to him to be required, then providing, as is provided in lines 22 to 26 on page 6 of the Bill, that the exercise of this unfettered discretion shall be withdrawn from the right of the governors to make representations or objections. However, that is a matter at which we can look more carefully in Committee.
Some anxiety has been expressed about the retrospective element in the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee), in particular, referred to the doubts and hesitations which he feels about this. One always feels doubtful about retrospection in legislation and to some extent I share the doubts which have been expressed today. However, in fairness to the right hon. Gentleman I should say that I regard


the retrospective element in the Bill rather as comparable to a Bill of indemnity covering past matters rather than as a retrospective provision in the sense of some which we have had in the past, like the famous Black and Lord cases. On the whole, my feeling is that any Government after the Enfield decision would have felt impelled to introduce a retrospective provision of approximately this character.
I do not quarrel with Clause 1. The exclusions in lines 13–20 on page 1 are, in general, acceptable and reasonable, but the right hon. Gentleman must have been mistaken when he intervened in the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle) to say that paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of Clause 1(1) referred only to the retrospective aspect of the Bill.
I think that I saw a telegram being sent from the Box shortly after that. He will realise, looking at Clause 1(5) that, though as it were, speaking now, their only effect is retrospective, after the summer term of 1968, they would be the current provisions. That being so my comment on that generally is that they are broadly reasonable in the light of the new words about "significant change in character" inserted in Section 13 of the principal Act by Clause l(2,a) and by the definition of those words set out in the new subsection 10 of the principle Act, printed at lines 28 to 34 on page 2.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Christopher Price) delivered a somewhat passionate oration about the meaning of "character". He was rather implying, although he did not quite put it that way, that his right hon. Friend had sold the pass of Thermopylae, or some other historic pass, and sought to imply, so far as Mr. Speaker would allow him, some criticism of the recent decision in the Enfield case.
The hon. Member has rather misunderstood that. As I understood the first Enfield case, there was nothing about the word "character" or its meaning, but it was to do with the duty of the authority to maintain and not cease to maintain a school. The word "character" and the comments about it which are to be found are all common law comments, namely that if one fundamentally changes the character of a

school then one has ceased to maintain a school.
That is the sole relevance of the word "character". There is no question of an old statutory meaning from the 1944 Act being misinterpreted. With respect to the hon. Member, while I enjoyed his impassioned oration, as I enjoy all impassioned orations, from both sides of the House on all subjects, I thought that it did not have much to do with the Bill.

Mr. Christopher Price: We ought not to get too tied up in what Mr. Justice Donaldson did or did not say, or what he did or did not do. One of the things he had to decide was whether the Enfield Council was ceasing to maintain one school and opening a new school. Among the reasons which might constitute ceasing to maintain one school and the opening of a new one was a substantial change in character, as laid down in the Act.

Mr. Bell: I would agree with all of that except the words "as laid down in the Act". I am not going to be dogmatic on this because it is difficult to look through an Act while someone is speaking, but I am not sure that the words "change in character" appeared in the 1944 Act. Whether or not they do they have nothing to do with the Enfield decision.
What we have to remember in relation to this Bill is that his right hon. Friend is putting in these words as a new addition to the grounds on which a Section 13 notice can be served. It is, if I may respectfully say so, a very good addition, which fairly neatly meets the point which recently arose, providing some kind of answer to it.
As I understand the provisions of the Bill, the local education authority will have to submit proposals to the Minister under Section 13 of the 1944 Act if there is a proposal to make a single sex school a mixed school. That must be so. The parents will have their chance to object. The point which my right hon. Friend was making, and which rather got lost in the bad point about retrospection is that, by excluding change of sex from Clause 1 and putting it in only as part of the fundamental change of character, one leaves out the structural considerations, the need for specifications and plans. This is a matter deserving of


thought and I imagine that it will receive this in Committee.
It is quite right that parents should have the opportunity, which the Secretary of State is proposing in the Bill, of lodging objections where there is a change in the sex composition of a school. Opinions vary a great deal about this. I think that it is usually a bad change from a single sex school to a mixed school, at least from the boys point of view, for public education, as distinct from the private education. This is because the main defect of the public sector is an inadequate element or monasticism. [Laughter.] I hoped that that would be provocative and I am not disappointed.
Segregation gives a degree of intensity and we are in great danger of producing rounded pebbles, good mixers and uncomplicated people, to act as prospective Parliamentary candidates for the benches opposite. However, I recognise that this is only one personal point of view. The important thing is that parents should have the opportunity of reacting, as the Bill provides. The same is true of the principle of selection, which is the topic that has engaged most of the time and attention during the debate.
My view may not be quite the same as some hon. Members opposite. I am not utterly devoted to the concept of selection at 11-plus. That has never seemed to me to be the point in the controversy, which is that opinions do vary about this and that every parent should, within the limits of what is geographically possible, be able to back his own fancy—

Mr. R. C. Mitchell,: Can the hon. and learned Gentleman explain how, under the present selective system, a parent has a choice of sending his child to a grammar or secondary school? It surely depends upon examination. He may have a choice not to send his child to grammar school, but in no other way.

Mr. Bell: When the hon. Gentleman rose I hesitated a moment before giving way, because I was going on to say, and perhaps this will deal with this point— and have the chance of sending his child to a selective school if he prefers that and

his child can get in, or to a non-selective school if he prefers that.
Unhappily, the Bill does not provide for that vital parental system of choice, but it at least allows the parent to object if a selective school is in danger of being made non-selective.

Mr. Gordon Walker: Or vice versa.

Mr. Bell: Or as the right hon. Gentleman says, or vice versa. He is anticipating political developments, which I thought it unkind to refer to at the moment.

Mr. Gordon Walker: It is logical.

Mr. Bell: How far the parents' objections will get them in practice will depend on the Secretary of State. He must consider their representations, but, having considered them, he may do what he likes. On page 6 of the Bill, lines 29 to 23, there is a provision on which I should comment. Again, in expressing some anxiety, I do not want to put it too high, but the right hon. Gentleman will see that it is provided that the question of what is a significant change is for him. In as much as he will decide in the end anyway, it may be thought that it hardly matters if he also decides whether he even has to consider it. But there is some ground for objection here.
It is not a matter of fearing bad faith. No one would suspect the right hon. Gentleman of other than the most excellent good faith. It is a matter of judgment. I do not see why parents or other local government electors should have to be satisfied on that point with the right hon. Gentleman's judgment. Besides, he may not hold his position for ever. One knows that the Prime Minister likes to have a certain amount of what is called in the steel industry "circulating scrap" in his Government. It might come round for one of them to have a turn at being Secretary of State for Education, and then we should have to be satisfied with his judgment. This, again, is a matter which we must consider.
The value of the right to object is the centre and crux of this controversy. Under the Bill, the check on change will be that the local education authority must propose and the Secretary of State must approve. Only if both are united against the parents can the parents be overborne; and the Minister is responsible to this House.


That works well enough if the dominant party at Westminster is not doctrinally committed to the methods of the famous Procrustes. If, for five years, there is a Government devoted to destroying all selective schools, since local control and Westminster majorities often coincide—a thought which is bringing us comfort at the present time—these procedures may, in practice, be quite nugatory.
A Minister from whom has issued a circular like Circular 10/65 will overrule all objections from parents about selective schools. The circular, by implication, indicates that that would be so. What we need, therefore, is not only the additional procedure in the Bill, which is welcome enough in itself, but a national decision which would not be brushed aside by the swaying fortunes of politics each few years. Children are not the raw material for people who like to be called educationists. The hon. Lady the Member for Wolverhampton—I always forget which division she represents, although I know that it is not South-West—

Mrs. Renée Short: North-East.

Mr. Bell: The hon. Lady was talking about pace setters, as though they were I he property of the educational theorists lather than people in their own right and whose parents might have views about them. As I say, these children are not the raw material for people who like to be called "educationists" and should not be moulded to execute any central decision about social purpose or the nature of the community, but should be variously educated in as many different systems as possible according to many different ideals and criteria.
In the wide range of modern public affairs, there is no other sphere in which variety, disagreement and difference are so important as they are in education. It is unreal to expect a central Government to arrange such variety. It can be attained only in freedom, and here freedom must mean principally freedom for parents. What a pity, then, that the Secretary of State did not use this opportunity to give some specific meaning and more binding effect to Section 76 of the Education Act, 1944, the side note to which somewhat optimistically states that the children are to be educated according to the wishes of their parents. It

may not be too late. I imagine that a new Clause along those lines would be within the scope and Long Title of the Bill. If the right hon. Gentleman did that, he would make for himself a memorable and honourable place in British educational history.
The tragedy of much of this is that right hon. and hon. Members opposite do not, I believe, greatly disagree in their hearts with the general concept of variety and of freedom which I have outlined. They are trapped inside the unfortunate name "comprehensive schools". What they mean is "non-selective", and even that only in a limited sense, because the educationally subnormal, even though not ineducable, do not go to comprehensive schools. However, the word "comprehensive" bedevils their thinking. If any exception is permitted, the remainder will not be comprehensive.
"Comprehensive" has become a party talisman of hon. Members opposite. Yet a moment's thought should show them and the hon. Lady the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East, who developed this point in her speech, that a contention by one body of opinion claiming to bar all others on the ground that its particular preference can be attained only in abstract perfection by prohibiting all other preferences is hardly compatible with a free, varied and flexible society.
Finally, we accept the Bill on Second Reading with gratitude to the parents of Enfield and acknowledge—it would be churlish not to acknowledge—the rôle, perhaps the rôle of Ganymede, which has been discharged by the Secretary of State. In Committee, we shall seek to improve it and clarify it, give it a little red blood and fighting spirit—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am only halfway through the sentence—so that it may be a more worthy, useful and effective protection in education for the much bruised freedom of the general public.

6.49 p.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Education and Science (Miss Alice Bacon): I sympathise with those who found the Bill difficult to understand. However, it looks more complicated than it is. I am sure that hon. Members will agree that the setting out of Schedule 3 has been a very great help.
I should like, first, to congratulate the hon. Member for Walthamstow, West


(Mr. Silvester) on his maiden speech, which was very thoughtful. We on this side of the House, in particular, appreciated his reference to our late colleague, Mr. Edward Redhead.
My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said that I would deal with several points. When I looked forward to the debate, I thought of the things which he might not cover in detail and with which I might deal, but I find that they have not figured at all in the debate, whereas others have. Therefore, I do not propose to deal with such things as special agreement schools, the points arising out of the London Government Act, 1963, the alteration about the procedure for changing articles of government of voluntary schools, which has been mentioned only in passing, nor the temporary additional accommodation for pupils in voluntary schools.
I thought that the whole of my speech would be devoted to these matters, but they are things which I think we must leave now for the Committee, and I will try as far as I can to answer the points which have been raised by those who have spoken.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Sir E. Boyle) raised the question of the co-educational school and wondered why the change to or from a co-educational school did not constitute the school's being discontinued and a new one being established. As the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) has said, there is a difference here between what we have been legitimising in the past and what we are considering as the law for the future.
There is a question whether any particular change in the character of a school is or is not so fundamental as to constitute the replacing of the school by a new school. The Bill treats the replacement of a boys' school by a girls' school or vice versa as such a fundamental change—that is, that one school is closed and a new one opened; but the conversion of a single-sex school into a coeducational school is treated as a change in the character of a school. This is partly because it is a question of degree, for if we were to allow 20 boys into a girls' school of 300 I do not think that

anybody would suggest that a new school would have been created. There is the question, where the line is to be drawn.
However, Section 13 notices are required in either case. The only difference is that in the direct change from a boys' to a girls' school or a girls' to a boys' school new legal entities emerge. The basis of the distinction can also be put in this way: the direct change necessarily involves a complete changes of the pupils. The other change might involve not more than a 50 per cent, change. I think this is something we can discuss in Committee, but I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will see the reason for this difference.

Sir E. Boyle: Yes, but may I just explain the reason for my concern about that to the right hon. Gentleman— [Laughter.] I mean, the right hon. Lady, and I apologise to her and to the House. I apologise for having said this more than once, but the point is that no one doubts that parents will have opportunities of objecting in either case under Clause 1(2).
The question at issue is whether or not the local authority has to submit plans and specifications. Surely, in the case of a change to or from a boys' school to a girls' school or a mixed school, or a girls' school to a mixed school, there may be need for, say, new craftrooms —new physical provision. It was for that reason that I rather doubted whether this change should be exempt from the local authority's having to put forward plans and specifications.

Miss Bacon: Yes, I quite understand the point now, and it is one I am sure we can come back to in Committee.
The right hon. Gentleman said—and this has been echoed by other hon. Gentlemen opposite—that we would not have had the Bill if the Enfield parents had not taken action. It has been suggested, too, in some quarters, particularly in the Press, that the Bill has led Enfield parents to not continue with action which they had started. But the position with regard to the action before this decision was taken was that, for all practical purposes, the parents' committee could hope to succeed only if it could show that the authority had not been acting in good faith.
This emerged clearly from a letter which appeared in the Enfield Gazette from the Press officer of the committee after the action against the Department, the relevant part of this letter being this:
 In giving his verdict in July, Mr. Justice Goff said that we could get the courts to set the entire scheme aside as illegal if we can show that it was so unreasonable ' as to be evidence that (the Council) must have acted on a wrong principle or dishonestly'.
I do not think that anybody will suggest that that had been so.
I should like to say that my right hon. Friend received a letter on 8th December from Enfield Teachers' Association of the N.U.T., saying:
 I am instructed to forward to you the following resolution which was passed by an overwhelming majority at the general meeting of the E.T.A. on Wednesday, 15th November, at Rowantree School:
We request the Local Education Authority to implement comprehensive education throughout Enfield at the very earliest opportunity.
As I have said, I do not think anybody would suggest that what has happened in the past has happened in any way deliberately to flout the law. It has been the practice for a long time for Section 13 notices not to be held as being necessary in certain conditions. A great deal has been quoted from Sir William Alexander's article in Education, which, if I may say so, was a very admirable precis of the Bill now before us, but nobody has mentioned what he said about a draft note which was sent out in 1954.
It is quite true that previous to 1954 there had grown up a practice of issuing or not issuing Section 13 notices, but in 1954 when neither my right hon. Friend nor any other right hon. Lady or right hon. Gentleman on this side of the House was Minister of Education a circular was sent out which, under the heading: "The need for Section 13 notices: Note for Chief Education Officers "said, about changes affecting a single school:
 Notices are not normally required when it is proposed to make not more than one of the following changes in the organisation of a single school:—(i) the alteration of the internal organisation of a secondary school from one type to another, e.g. from grammar to modern; or (ii) an alteration only in the sex composition of a school, e.g. the conversion of a mixed primary school into a single sex primary school or a boys' secondary school into a girls' secondary school; or (iii) the conversion of a primary school into a secondary school or vice versa.

Therefore, I would submit that Enfield and all the other local authorities which have been acting have been acting in conformity with the circular which was sent out. I will readily admit that the circular which was sent out was sent out having regard to the practice up to that time.
The right hon. Gentleman asked what is meant by "significant". In this respect, we would regard the following examples as being significant. We can come back to this in Committee, but we would regard a change from single sex to co-education, or vice versa, a change from selective to comprehensive intake, a change from secondary school to sixth form college, and major changes, of age range within a school, for example, from 11 to 18 or 13 to 18 in a secondary school, or from 5 to 7 or 5 to 11 in a primary school.
In the case of all middle schools—the 8 to 12 or 9 to 13 age ranges—under the Bill, proposals would require notices, as they do already under the 1944 Act. Amendments to the standards for school premises regulations for middle schools are under consideration, taking into account the views of the interested organisations. I think that that shows the kind of matters which we would regard as significant in carrying out this legislation.
The right hon. Gentleman also raised a point about the building regulations. He agreed that the phrase "shortage of materials and labour" was perhaps too old-fashioned for today, and he suggested words which might be used instead of those which appear in the Bill at the moment. I assure him that we will look at these words in Committee and, if necessary, change them to conform with his suggestion.
Then he expressed concern about comprehensive plans in existing buildings which might be two miles apart, and he went on to say that, because my right hon. Friend would be able to dispense with building regulations under this Bill, somehow or another it would lead to that kind of situation. However, on reflection, I think that he will see that my right hon. Friend's powers under the Bill with regard to the building regulations have nothing to do with buildings two miles apart. Indeed, I think that the fact that


they are two miles apart is a slight exaggeration.
But whether buildings are apart or not is a matter which is inherent in the acceptance of a plan under Circular 10/65. It is not the state of the buildings: they might be perfectly good buildings which would be suitable under the building regulations. As I say, it is not really a matter for this Bill, but it is one which we have to take into consideration when deciding whether to accept schemes for comprehensive reorganisation.
I was interested in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Albu) and in what he said about Enfield.
I come now to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, North (Mr. Forrester). Here I want to say a word of praise for the Borough of Stoke-on-Trent, which has a very good record in education. We all remember with great pleasure the speeches on education made by my hon. Friend's predecessor, Mrs. Harriet Slater.
My hon. Friend drew attention to the way in which changes in the character of schools affect primary schools, and he talked about the Plowden proposal for having the age of 12 instead of 11. He said that the main burden would fall on the primary schools.
Since my hon. Friend has raised the point about the effect of secondary reorganisation on primary schools, I want to refer to what I believe is one of the greatest beneficial effects of ending the 11-plus examination. It is the effect which this has had on the primary schools, because they are now freed from the competition which has always gone on in them and the pressures understandably created by parents for their children to get through the 11-plus.
I have been in my new job for only a short time and have visited just a few primary schools, but I have been most impressed by what I have found in terms of the creative and experimental work which is being done, particularly the outstanding work in the teaching of French and the new mathematics. Although my hon. Friend sounded a note of caution about this, I am sure he will agree that there are some very beneficial effects on

primary schools arising out of secondary reorganisation.
The hon. Member for Brierley Hill (Mr. Montgomery) spoke about the rights of parents, and I will return to that topic in a few moments. He also criticised the Government for what he called reorganisation without the money for it. However, he and the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) will realise that this Government have provided a good deal of money for the raising of the school-leaving age, and most local authorities have used that money to prepare for secondary reorganisation and comprehensive schools.

Mr. Pardoe: Would the right hon. Lady deny that the present plans for raising the school-leaving age are at least two years behind schedule?

Miss Bacon: Certainly I would deny that. The present Government have done more towards raising the school-leaving age than our predecessors did. We have recognised that a great deal more building will be needed, so much so that we have, over three years, set aside more than £100 million for school building which will be necessary as a result of raising the school leaving age.
My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Christopher Price) wanted a new Education Act which goes much wider than the present one, and he asked for an assurance that the Bill will not postpone a major Bill. I do not want to commit myself about the possibility of a major Bill, but certainly, if we were thinking in terms of a major Bill, this Measure would not postpone it in any way. I agree with what he said about the three types of school. Originally, it was to be in the 1944 Education Act, but, in the end, was not put in.
I want now to deal briefly with the speech of the hon. Member for Cornwall, North. He will realise that there has been quite a substantial amount allocated to raising the school-leaving age in his own area. Cornwall's share of the first two allocations is £215,000 in each year, which I suggest is very good from the point of view of the area.
I was interested in what my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, North (Mr. Moyle) said about the position in the I.L.E.A. As yet, we have not had the new proposals from the


Inner London Education Authority. When we have them, they will be considered.
The hon. Member for Wokingham (Mr. van Straubenzee) and other hon. Members mentioned a whole scheme for the reorganisation of secondary schools. I want to emphasise what the right hon. Member for Handsworth realises and appreciates perhaps better than anyone else on his side of the House. Comprehensive education is not a political matter as between the Labour Party and the Tory Party. Taking county councils in England and Wales—unfortunately, we have only one Labour county council—25 have had schemes covering the whole or greater parts of their areas implemented, and 21 others have had parts of their areas accepted or implemented.
That shows that there is a great split in the party opposite about comprehensive education. While some people pay lip service to the opposition to comprehensive education, many Tory local authorities in the country are going ahead with it. I do not say that that is so of all Tory local authorities, of course. Some are very much opposed to it, again as the right hon. Gentleman realises.

Mr. William Molloy: My right hon. Friend is making great play with the fact that the Conservative Party is being recalcitrant about schemes for comprehensive education. However, is she aware that Ealing Borough Council has experienced more opposition from her Ministry than from anyone else and has suffered the great humiliation of seeing her Ministry's rejection of its scheme appear in the Daily Telegraph before being officially informed?

Miss Bacon: I cannot comment on that. As my hon. Friend realises, the revised scheme from Ealing is being considered by my Department and it would be wrong to make any pronouncement about it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Renée Short) raised the question of the comprehensive school in Wolverhampton and that in the future parents would be allowed to choose, if they wished, grammar schools in other areas for their children. She asked whether this Bill gives power to my right hon. Friend to deal with this situation. I am doubtful about

that. It may be that in some similar case, where such a position substantially altered the character of the school, this Bill could be brought into operation, but I would not like to say that in this instance that would be so. We shall have to watch this very carefully.
I regret, as much as my hon. Friend does, the action of Wolverhampton. I agree with her, from what I have read in the local papers of the meetings which have taken place, that most people in this area are against the council having made this alteration. I can only hope that, because there is such opposition to what is being done, very few of the parents will opt to take their children from the comprehensive school and ask for them to be admitted to grammar schools in other areas.

Mrs. Renée Short: Would my right hon. Friend not agree that even if a small percentage opt to go to the selective grammar schools this would change the character of the comprehensive school and would undermine its comprehensiveness? Would she not then feel that her right hon. Friend could intervene?

Miss Bacon: We shall have to look at this very carefully. If it changed the character of the school substantially, according to the Bill that would be so; but whether the few children—I hope it would be very few—who might opt to go to the selective grammar schools would change the character of the school is a question That I do not feel I can answer at the present time.

Mr. Ronald Bell: Is the right hon. Lady implying, from the disapproval in her words, that she thinks it wrong that parents should have the degree of choice of sending their child to a selective school if they so wish? Is she advocating total coercion for one type, and one type only, of school?

Miss Bacon: The hon. and learned Gentleman need not have got up and asked me that, because I was coming to his speech, which largely dealt with this matter. He said that every parent should be able to back his own fancy, to be selective, if he prefers that, if his child can get in. I agree with the intervention of my hon. Friend in this respect. What choice has there been for the ordinary parent? If a child has not


passed the 11-plus or has not been selected in some other way and the parent has gone to the education authority and said, "I would like my child to go to a grammar school", has that child gone to a grammar school? Of course not.
The hon. and learned Gentleman said that he hoped that my right hon. Friend would have brought forward a Bill giving parents the right of choice for the education of their children. I believe—and I know that most of my hon. Friends believe—that the proper way to give parents and children the choice of education is for the children to be in comprehensive schools where there is a wide choice of every conceivable kind.
We seem to have strayed from the original Bill. If I have strayed, it is because, as I said at the beginning, I came prepared to speak about the Bill, but I have found more interesting things have been raised during the debate.
The Bill, in short, proposes three main things: first, to validate beyond doubt the existence of some hundreds of schools whose establishment since 1945 has not complied with the requirements of the law, as the Court of Appeal has now interpreted it; secondly, to define and extend the grounds on which local inhabitants have a right to register objections to substantial changes in the function or the size of a school; and, thirdly, to clarify the circumstances in which school buildings are required to conform to the prescribed standards governing new schools.
I believe that these changes, taken together, will provide appropriate opportunity for local public opinion to express itself about proposed school changes while assisting the local education authorities in carrying out their work.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 40 (Committal of Bills).

EDUCATION [MONEY]

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Resolved,

That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session relating to education it is expedient to authorise any increase in the sums payable out of moneys provided by Parliament under the Education Acts 1944 to 1967 which may result from provisions of the following descriptions:—
(a) provisions under which the powers to make grants under the Education Act 1967 section 1, and to make loans under the Education Act 1944 section 105, on the making, to school premises of an aided or special agreement school, of alterations amounting to the establishment of a new school are replaced by powers to make maintenance contributions under the Education Act 1944 section 102, and to make loans under section 105, on an enlargement of such premises that has a substantial effect on the size of the school;
(b) provisions extending the powers conferred on the Secretary of State under or by virtue of section 7 of the Education (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1948 in relation to sites or buildings not conforming to the prescribed standards for school premises.— [Mr. Gordon Walker.]

PROCEDURE

Mr. Speaker: I have previously announced the selections that I have made of Amendments to the Motions that are now to be discussed by the House.

Sittings of the House

7.14 p.m.

Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Richard Crossman): I beg to move,

That, during the remainder of the present Session,

(1) a motion may be made after ten of the clock by a Minister of the Crown, That the proceedings of this day's sitting be suspended, and the question thereon shall be decided without amendment or debate; and if the question be agreed to in the House, a motion may immediately thereafter be made, That this House do now adjourn, and, at the conclusion of the debate on that motion and in no case later than half an hour after the motion has been made, the motion shall lapse and Mr. Speaker shall suspend the sitting till ten of the clock on the following morning, or, if it be after midnight, till ten of the clock in the morning of the same day;

(2) if the question on a motion made likewise in a Committee of the Whole House,


That the proceedings of the Committee be suspended, be so decided in the affirmative, the Chairman shall leave the chair and make a report to that effect, whereupon Mr. Speaker shall forthwith put the question, That the proceedings of this day's sitting be suspended, and the House shall proceed thereon in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (1) of this Order, and, if the question be agreed to, a motion for the adjournment of the House may be made and the sitting shall afterwards be suspended as aforesaid; but, if that question be negatived, the House shall immediately again resolve itself into the Committee;

(3) on the resumption of the sitting the House shall forthwith resume the suspended proceedings and may afterwards proceed with the remaining business of the sitting which has been suspended: Provided that
(a) on a Motion being made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House do now adjourn, Mr. Speaker shall put the question thereon forthwith; or
(b) on the conclusion of the business Mr. Speaker shall adjourn the House without putting any question; or
(c) if the business has not been concluded before two of the clock Mr. Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings at that hour, or, if the House be in committee, the chairman shall leave the chair and report progress and ask leave to sit again, and Mr. Speaker shall thereafter adjourn the House without putting any question.

This Motion is about the suspension of a sitting after 10 p.m. It is true that in the changes that we made in our procedure in our previous debate we have, as a by-product, substantially reduced the possibilities of unwanted late-night sittings. However, we are now specifically putting forward plans for replacing the morning sitting experiment with changes designed to achieve the same aim by different means.

In moving the Motion, I will not go into any great details, because I think that the House found it convenient on the last occasion to have an almost formal opening, and for me then to listen to the debate and reply to it, rather than repeat what the House already knows very well, which is how the draft proposed Standing Order is to work.

One great difference from the regular morning sittings which we had last Session is that Divisions can take place. We are merely having a suspended late sitting. The sitting will continue from 10 a.m. next day as though it was part of the previous day's work. It simply means that the previous day's work is extended, with the interruption of the night. It will be a genuine substitution

for a late sitting. In that respect, it differs from the experiment which we carried out last Session.

I conclude with those few words, with the understanding that, if necessary, I will ask the leave of the House to reply to the debate.

7.20 p.m.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I do not think much of this proposal. I shall vote against it, and advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to do the same. It is an attempt to save face after the ridiculous experiment which, at the time, the right hon. Gentleman called a reform. I am referring to the experiment of the Monday and Wednesday morning sittings.
I have carefully read again the right hon. Gentleman's speech of 14th November, which I rather expected him to repeat today. It is perhaps as well that I read it carefullly beforehand, because he has not said very much today. He said:
… I could not repeat the ordeal to which whole-time Government back benchers and House officials were subjected last July.
Government back benchers were not conspicuous by their attendance during those morning sittings. The sittings were a grave inconvenience to you, Mr. Speaker, to the Clerks of the House, to officials, to the Press, to the police, and to everyone concerned with the affairs of this House, but not particularly to whole-time Government back benchers.
In his speech, the right hon. Gentleman considered three possibilities with which he said he was faced. He said:
The first was to accept the rejection of the morning sitting experiment and simply revert to previous practice leaving the whole-time Member as badly off as before and the House conducted for the convenience of the part-time Member.
Who is the part-time Member?

Dr. Reginald Bennett: Ministers.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: They are the main ones.
A solid block of 100 of them are the part-time Members. It is right that they should be part-time Members, because they have to try to run their Departments, and one reason why we spoke against the morning sittings experiment was that we thought it would make it difficult for Ministers to exercise


any control over their Departments if they had to hang about here during the morning. They must not only control their Departments, but hold inter-Ministerial meetings, and so on in the morning. However, the right hon. Gentleman rejected that possibility and he was right to do so but his reason was singularly unconvincing.
The right hon. Gentleman went on to say:
The second possibility was to follow the course pressed on me by a number of my hon. Friends of rolling back the whole business of the House so as to conform with normal office hours.
The right hon. Gentleman used the phrase "rolling back" in a sort of Alice in Wonderland way, because he meant the contrary. He meant rolling forward, because he meant rolling forward Question Time to ten o'clock or half-past ten in the morning, and following that with the debate of the day. I think that that is rolling forward, not rolling back. He went on to say:
 But the more I reflected on it the more it seemed to contain one central defect for anyone who cares about debates on the Floor of the House.

Mr. Crossman: I meant rolling back. I meant that instead of starting at 2.30 we should start five hours earlier, at 10.30. That is backwards. A watch is wound backwards from 2.30 to 10.30.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: That is a splendid semantic argument. I started it, but I think that if one begins earlier, one rolls a thing forwards, not backwards. In the light of the things done by the Government I understand the right hon. Gentleman taking a contrary view, and I shall, therefore, not pursue the point any further.
The right hon. Gentleman continued:
 If we roll all the business back so as to have Question Time from 10.30 to 11.30 and the big debate running from 11.30 to 6, with exempted business starting after the 6.30 Adjournment, then it follows that Standing Committees cannot meet in the morning—that is during Question Time and the two main speeches. In that case one must run them simultaneously with the main debate on the Floor of the House in the afternoon. One can do that to one or two Committees, with a great deal of protest on Thursday afternoons, but I just cannot envisage 10 or 12 Standing Committees suddenly suspending business so that Members can vote in a Division on the Floor. One cannot roll back

the business in that way. It is a reductio ad absurdum."
I hope, therefore, that we have now finally disposed of that suggestion of rolling back or rolling forward the business of the day so as to start our normal day's work at 10.30. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman has disposed of that. I know that some of his hon. Friends want it, but he said that it was reductio ad absurdum, and with that part of his speech I agree.

Sir Douglas Glover: What my right hon. and learned Friend has quoted from the right hon. Gentleman's speech of 14th November is a complete argument against the Finance Bill being considered upstairs when the House is here and a debate is going on.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: My hon. Friend is right. We tried to point this out during the debate on this subject.
Having disposed of the business of rolling backwards or rolling forward forever, we come to the right hon. Gentleman's third alternative, that it was part of a combined operation. First, the Committee stage of the Finance Bill goes upstairs. That will mean four all-night sittings on the Floor of the House for the Recommittal and Report stages. He dealt next with the debates on affirmative Orders; he followed that by talking about Counts; both of these we debate later this evening; and then we come to this Motion, the fourth part of the combined operation.
The right hon. Gentleman said that there were to be ad hoc sittings of this kind, but they were not to be frequent, and added:
 Indeed the test of the Standing Order will not be the frequency with which it is employed but its efficacy as a deterrent, as a means of reducing the number of occasions when hardworking whole-time Members are kept hanging around the Palace of Westminster by a handful of Members, some of them amateurs, inspired by that unique combination of postprandial high spirits and moral indignaton which, late at night, can keep a debate going long after the topic is exhausted."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th November, 1967; Vol. 754, c. 254–6.]
This was a magnificent purple passage in the right hon. Gentleman's speech, but it did not lead to the conclusion which he drew, because instead of this being a deterrent, it will be an encouragement. It will be a temptation to which


I fear I may yield from time to time. If a Minister whom one dislikes comes along and talks away, one will enter into the debate whether the topic is exhausted or not, and force the Minister to use the deterrent. What will be the use of it if he will not use it? He will have to resume the debate and be here at 10 a.m., with perhaps 100 of his colleagues if he wants a Closure, or if he wants to win a Division.

Mr. Stanley Orme: At least it will be a pleasure to see some of those knight-errants back here at 10 o'clock in the morning, those whom we normally never see here at that hour.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I doubt whether the hon. Gentleman was ever on the Floor of the House to see the knight-errants. The beauty of this is that the same knight-errant need not come back the next morning. He will get the Standing Order invoked. He will prolong the debate until an infuriated Chief Whip has to invoke it. The following morning, two or three other hon. Members will come along and continue the battle. This is a ridiculous suggestion which the right hon. Gentleman has put forward. The Monday and Wednesday morning sittings experiment was ridiculous. We said so, and we were proved right, and this proposal is as ridiculous.
Let us just stop to think of the inconvenience which will be caused when, without notice, at midnight the Leader of the House, or the Chief Whip, decides to put the Standing Order into force. What about you, Mr. Speaker? What about the Clerks and the police? What about arrangements which have been made to view the Palace the following morning? There cannot possibly be a more inconvenient way of doing a thing than, quite suddenly after midnight, to have a statement saying that the House will meet at 10 o'clock the next day. In the interests of the House, and of the right hon. Gentleman himself, I beg him not to proceed with this Motion, because he will bitterly regret it if he does.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Arthur Woodburn: I am very glad to say that when this matter came up before the Select Committee on Procedure it was discussed much more rationally than has been the case with the

right hon. and learned Member for the Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) tonight. He has reverted to the post of Leader of the party group opposing the Motion and had, I suppose, to find reasons for opposing it.
In the Select Committee, all those who discussed this question were quite reason able and saw this as a possible solution to a problem which no one has yet solved. The House and the country think it is ridiculous that we should sit here all night wasting time, very often because someone has taken it into his head to keep the House up all night. I have had a lot of experience of this— perhaps more than the right hon. And learned Gentleman, because he was not bound to be here sometimes. I have known someone who is not here today coming in at the tail end of a day and keeping us here with several Prayers—

Dr. Bennett: Geoffrey Bing.

Mr. Woodburn: Yes, he was one, but there was one who is still a Member of the House who made quite a name for himself.
One hon. Member opposite said that the Opposition would harry the Government of the day to death, and many people were harried to their graves by that performance. If anyone thinks that that is a dignified way for the House to behave, it is not the public. They think it is stupid that two or three Members should be able to keep 100 sitting here all night just for some fun and games.
The question in the Select Committee was how to avoid that. I tried to find several solutions and, on the Select Committee, of which the right hon. And learned Gentleman was a Member, this suggestion was considered a possibility—

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: The right hon. Gentleman will correct me if I am wrong, but I do not think this suggestion was considered at all. What was considered was an automatic stop at 12 o'clock every night.

Mr. Woodburn: The automatic stop was certainly suggested. The Government have not adopted such a drastic method but have left it flexible, because it was thought there might be difficulties. The automatic stop raised the problem of depriving the Opposition of the right


to put pressure on the Government, which everyone thought they had a right to do.
It struck me that if the opposititon to any Government were keeping the House up all night we might deal with that by providing that all the time spent after midnight should be counted up and deducted from the Supply Days. That would have been a deterrent to the Opposition, officially at least, using up time and keeping people here all night on frivolous business. If they wanted to use their time during the night, they would have been perfectly free to do so, but they would not then be able to use it during the day.
However, one of my own colleagues suggested that this would not work, because Government Members might deliberately keep the House going for hours after midnight so as to frustrate the Opposition's right to Supply Days, and I had to admit that this was a possibility. Therefore, I withdrew that idea because it would have been wrong. It would not have punished the Opposition so much as put a weapon in the hands of Government supporters to deny the Opposition some of their Supply Day time.
I think that the Government have reached a happy solution. I am surprised at the heat opposite, because the Chief Whips on both sides thought that this was a possibility and the Committee gave it some blessing. I do not know why the right hon. and learned Member for the Wirral has accepted the responsibility of opposing it tonight, I am surprised that he has got so heated, because he has put forward no sensible alternative to getting rid of the stupidity of the House allowing one or two Members—even mischievous Members—to keep the House sitting all night for no other purpose than to have a little fun and games.
When serious business is involved, obviously the Government should avoid this method, but where it is only fun and games people should be allowed to go home and get some sleep and conduct their business properly. I am not a part-time Member and I object to being kept here by some frivolous Member who has not been here all day but has perhaps been earning a great deal of money in the courts and comes here at the end of his working day for some fun and games. No one will tolerate this, and this step

by the Government towards obviating it is a great contribution.

7.35 p.m.

Mr. R. H. Turton: I take a different view of this Motion from my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for the Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd), because I cannot distinguish it from what was in the Select Committee called the "Woodburn formula", which would have been automatic. This seems very similar. What surprises me is that when the Leader of the House appoints a Select Committee he pays so little attention to its decisions.
Whether this arrangement were automatic or at the instance of the Leader of the House is immaterial. It still has advantages and disadvantages. The first Report of the Select Committee for Session 1966–1967, paragraph 6, said:
 Your Committee have considered a proposal of attractive simplicity designed, to abolish all-night sittings by providing for an automatic suspension of the House at midnight, the unfinished business to be resumed the following morning. It is clear, however, that such a procedure would put great power into the hands of an Opposition … and would lead to greater rather than less uncertainty in the legislative programme.
This was our considered view.
 Indeed, in times of acute political controversy, such a practice could be used to deny the Government of the day effective control over the House.
We therefore looked at this.
The suggestion, although I was attracted by many of its features because I have a great dislike of all-night sittings, had to be rejected because it was impracticable as a Parliamentary solution. The Select Committee studied this matter for a long time, yet the Leader of the House completely rejected our advice and wishes now to adopt this solution.
I would be inclined to say, "Let him adopt it." I am certain that if he does he will give great advantages to the Opposition. The great difficulty, of course, is that this encourages the Opposition to see that on the morning after very little progress is made. There are only four hours in the morning, from 10 a.m. to 2 p.m., for discussion. The Motion provides that the sitting would be automatically adjourned at 2 o'clock, whereas the old Standing Order provided that if the discussion went up to 2.30 the next day's sitting was wiped out.
It is an advantage in the interests of the Government that this will be able to go on for only four hours, but my experience of the House tells me that this will be a great weakness and that the Government will tend to get through less business during the four hours of the morning than they would have achieved in the eight hours of the night.
If the Leader of the House persists in this, he will be dislocating his Government's programme even more than some of his other measures which have been proved to have failed—

Mr. Eric Lubbock: Is the right hon. Gentleman considering the case of Committee stages being taken on the Floor of the House? In that event, of course, the Government could introduce a timetable and it would not be possible for the Opposition of the day to continue the discussion fractiously between ten o'clock and two o'clock, thus upsetting business.

Mr. Turton: That is a reasonable point, and I am sure that the Leader of the House will take the hint from the Liberal Party. However, it would mean having a Guillotine Motion and presumably—unless we were to alter another Standing Order—prescribing the hours of the morning to be used, the time for Divisions and the Leader of the House moving a Motion for the use of that Standing Order. The complexities involved in that are, I suggest, too great for even the Leader of the House to adopt.
We must look at this whole matter again. I see the attraction of trying to do away with all-night sittings. If we can devise some way of arranging for voluntary timetables, if necessary by means of a deterrent, then that would be to the advantage of all hon. Members. However, as drafted, this proposal, attractive though it is, must be rejected, as it was unanimously rejected by the Select Committee.

Mr. Woodburn: While there may be something in the right hon. Gentleman's argument, would not he agree that not having this proposal would not guarantee that the Government would get their business? The House and the Select Committee decided that the Opposition must have some rights to obstruct Government

business. That right remains. The obstruction would not disappear if this proposal were rejected. It would still be there. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of that?

Mr. Turton: The right hon. Gentleman has forgotten what he recommended. He rejected this particular solution on the ground that it would put more power in the hands of the Opposition than they would have under the original Standing Order. In other words, they would be more encouraged to dislocate business than under the present Standing Order.
The name of Mr. Geoffrey Bing has been mentioned. I am certain that if we were—as we very shortly will be— the Government again and hon. Gentlemen opposite were on the Opposition benches, Mr. Bing, if he were here, would find no difficulty at all in talking for four hours every morning to dislocate Government business. He was able to do that when we were in power. Indeed, the Leader of the House would, no doubt, be able to do precisely the same. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman is proposing this change with a view to the time when he will be in opposition. One must have in mind the unanimous view of the Select Committee. That view was that this proposal should not be adopted by a responsible Government, because it would place such great power in the hands of the Opposition.

7.43 p.m.

Mr. F. Blackburn: At least, we are making progress. That must be so when the right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) says that we must have some means of getting rid of all-night sittings. However, it seems that hon. Gentlemen opposite are opposed to every suggestion made by the Government to alter the procedure of the House. I hope that, before we reach the end of debating these proposals, we will come across one suggestion with which they agree.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I must correct the hon. Gentleman. Is he aware that we allowed the Leader of the House to have 10 similar Motions the last time we discussed this matter and that we did not oppose them?

Mr. Blackburn: They were on minor matters. When we come to discuss


fundamental matters of change in the procedure of the House, the Opposition are against them. As I said in a speech on this subject last week, most people agree that some reform of our procedure is needed, but when we get to specific suggestions hon. Gentlemen opposite start opposing them.
I am no great enthusiast for morning sittings. I appreciate the difficulties that they place on you, Mr. Speaker, the Department of Ways and Means, the staff of the House, the Cabinet, other Ministers and a great many hon. Members involved in Standing Committees. However, there are times when an occasional morning sitting is preferable to an all-night sitting. As one who is usually here during late sittings, I take a dim view of a remark made in the debate last week when an hon. Gentleman opposite said, "You cannot take it". Is that really a sensible way of approaching our affairs in the House?
I think that most hon. Gentlemen opposite are directors of firms. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] I am not complaining about that. I am making a statement. I would be very surprised if they thought it sensible to discuss the affairs of the firms of which they are directors in the middle of the night. Yet it seems that they think it quite reasonable that we should discuss the affairs of the country in the middle of the night.
In the debate on procedure last week, one of the worst features of what happens in Finance Bill debates occurred. At 10 o'clock about half a dozen of the second eleven on the benches opposite arrived. Perhaps I should not call them that. If they consider that to be a derogatory remark, perhaps I should say that about half a dozen of the reserves arrived. We had not seen them during the earlier part of the day, yet they all proceeded to make speeches.
That is the sort of thing that happens. It is all very well to say that the Opposition are there to oppose, but there are two ways of opposing. One can oppose by obstruction—of which the Irish hon. Members were past-masters and for whom we had to alter the rules of the House—or one can oppose by the strength of debate. Opposition merely by obstruction gets us nowhere.
As I pointed out in the debate last week, when the former Leader of the House was boasting, after the 1965 Finance Bill, that hon. Gentlemen opposite had disrupted the business of the Government, all that he and his hon. Friends achieved was to make us sit for eight extra days at Whitsuntide and into August. A Government—any Government—will get their business, and if it means them keeping the House sitting longer that will be done. I therefore believe that there is a great deal of sense in trying to avoid these senseless all-night sittings.
In a memorandum which I submitted in 1964, I made a similar suggestion to the one we are discussing. I am, therefore, in favour of this proposal. There is no sense in continuing through the night a discussion of important matters of business. Indeed, I would send debates under Standing Order No. 9 to morning sittings and not allow such debates to disrupt the programme which has already been arranged. If there is agreement to have a debate under Standing Order No. 9, it should take place the following morning. I have been in agreement with the Leader of the House in most of these matters, but I must disagree with him about Standing Order No. 9 debates.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Surely it would be unjust to the Scottish Grand Committee to have these debates in the morning?

Mr. Blackburn: The Scottish Grand Committee does not meet every morning. I find that Scottish hon. Members are very adept at adapting themselves to whatever circumstances arise in the mornings. I am sure that they would manage to do something in these circumstances.
I did not look kindly at being kept for an extra three hours the other day because of the Standing Order No. 9 debate which took place. I do not look kindly on Members who make speeches early in the day and then disappear, leaving others to carry on the debate during the night. I therefore do not agree with my right hon. Friend about the last Standing Order No. 9 debate being a great success. I suggest that it was a flop, probably because my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) was so much below his usual form. Possibly he was so


amazed at getting a debate under the Standing Order No. 9 procedure that he had not recovered by the following day.
That is another matter which could very well be dealt with in morning sittings. These would happen only occasionally. Under my suggestion the debate under Standing Order No. 9 last week would have taken place on Tuesday morning and the continuation of the debate on what was supposed to be the Coal Industry Bill, but was actually on the White Paper, would have taken place cm the Wednesday morning. I am sure that it would have been for the convenience of hon. Members and we would have discussed important matters at a more sensible time.
I hope that hon. Members will accept this suggestion because by doing so we would improve the way in which the business of the House is conducted and to some extent we would improve our image in the country. Whatever hon. Members opposite may think about the value of all-night sittings, we get no kudos from the country because we conduct our business at such odd hours.

7.52 p.m.

Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter (Kingston-upon-Thames): I thought both the right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) and the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Blackburn) were a little naive as to the causes of the all-night sittings which they so much deplore. It is perfectly true that on occasion an hon. Member who knows a little about procedure and takes advantage of his opportunities can incommode the Government of the day. I have vivid recollections of the present Financial Secretary to the Treasury in that rôle. He took advantage of it with great skill, but in the normal course, it is simply the desire of the Government to get through too much controversial business in too short a time. If we look at what happened last summer we see that the main cause was simply that the Government were trying to push too much business through. It is an extraordinary doctrine that if the Patronage Secretary or the Leader of the House sees fit to put down certain business for the day it is a sign of terrible filibustering if that business is not completed by 10 p.m.
It is the job of the Leader of the House —one on which the present Leader has

fallen down recently—to judge of the amount of business which the House will take. If the Government overload the programme they will get an all-night sitting. That is the natural reaction of an Opposition to a Government trying to drive the House too hard. The idea that whatever goes down on the Order Paper in the wisdom of the Government must be law by 10 p.m. is a very unpleasantly authoritarian idea which I very much resent.
The Leader of the House was very skilful in his speech when he said nothing at all about the demise of his morning sittings experiment of last Session. They were a most almighty flop and caused an enormous amount of inconvenience, particularly to those who serve us. They must have cost a great amount of public money. They got through very little business, but in many ways they brought the House into contempt. The Leader of the House cannot say that we did not warn him that this would happen. He produced this ludicrous ill thought-out procedure which failed. He was warned that it would fail, but instead of learning from that he has come forward with an even worse proposal which we warn him will also fail. He is not present at the moment to be warned. He would be a wiser man if occasionally he stayed to listen to speeches.
This new proposal is even worse than the old one. It was suggested at first that we should not take important and really major business in the mornings. The right hon. Gentleman had the decency on the previous occasion not to put down controversial business for morning sittings. They were second-class sittings taking third-class business. Under the new proposal morning sittings may well involve major business. We did have a little notice of the business for the previous morning sittings. It was known a week before what would be the business on those mornings. Subject to the confusion which Government business has been in during the last year or two, we had an idea of what the business would be. Now it is contemplated that late at night—perhaps after midnight, because the proposed Standing Order contemplates this being done after midnight—suddenly the Leader of the House, whom I am glad to see back in his place, or the Minister in charge of the Bill, in


a fit of petulance will say, "All right, you will come back at 10 a.m. tomorrow morning to continue the business ".
Has the right hon. Gentleman thought out what would happen if that action were taken? First, there is Mr. Speaker and his deputies, all of whom work hard in the morning and have detailed and important meetings which would have to be scratched at a few hours' notice—work essential to the proper working of this House. Ministers would be dragged from their offices. It may be argued that that would be a good thing as it might keep them out of mischief, but it would be very inconvenient and an inefficient way of running government.
What about hon. Members on Standing Committees who are interested in the business debated the night before? Are they not to attend a Standing Committee but to attend the adjourned sitting of the House? What about hon. Members who have perfectly respectable and important engagements of one sort or another on the following morning? Are they to cancel those engagements after midnight? What about parties of constituents brought here to be shown over the building by arrangements of some months' standing? Are those arrangements to be cancelled all because a Minister got into a temper at 1 o'clock in the morning? This is not the way to conduct the business of the House.
What about the staff of the House? Under the present roster system some of those who are on duty at night are not those who are on duty for the first shift next day. That is the only humane way to run these things. What is to happen when at 1 a.m. we are told the House will meet again at 10? Are they to come and get into their uniforms by that time?

Mr. James A. Dunn (Liverpool, Kirk-dale): Mr. James A. Dunn (Liverpool, Kirk-dale) rose

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: If the hon. Member feels that he speaks with authority on this matter, certainly I shall give way. [Hon. Members: "Oh"] I want, first, to put the question so that if the hon. Member speaks with authority he may answer it. Even he cannot answer a question until it is put. Those who would normally be coming here at 2.30 are to

be told in the middle of the night that they have to be here at 9 a.m. or 9.30 a.m. for a sitting at 10 a.m.

Mr. Dunn: I am sorry if the right hon. Gentleman thinks I tried to jump the question. I was not intending to be discourteous. Is he aware that some of the staff on occasion have been on continuous duty for more than 24 hours and once for 31 hours?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am aware of that. It was almost wholly the responsibility of the Lord President of the Council, despite the warnings we gave him. The hon. Member has made an extremely good point, but he must realise that this is a powerful argument against having morning sittings, which brought this about last Session. The only difference in this proposal, as the hon. Member will appreciate, is that on the other occasions those so unfortunately placed were apt to have some notice of what would happen, whereas in this case they will have very little notice at all. Many of these people will be in their homes, which may be in the outer London area. Someone will have to communicate with them in the middle of the night and tell them that they have to be on parade early in the morning.
The hon. Member who concerns himself with the staff will realise, I hope, the additional hardship which would be involved. It is not for the hon. Gentleman, nor for me, but for the Leader of the House to explain how this is to be handled, and how it is to be handled without causing unnecessary hardship. This is one of the many reasons why this proposal is extraordinarily inefficient.
We know that we cannot function as a House without those who help us here. If the HANSARD reporters are not there— they, too, are rostered on various timetables—and if the messengers are not there, the House cannot function. What I think the Leader of the House will do, if the proposal goes through, is to produce a shambles and perhaps even the humiliating situation in which Mr. Speaker and the House assemble, but are unable to sit for lack of the physical means of doing so—a situation which would undoubtedly be very damaging to the reputation of the House.
This seems to me to be a completely cock-eyed proposal. In the passage of the speech the Leader of the House made on 14th November, which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) quoted, the right hon. Gentleman said that this was intended to be a deterrent, that he really did not intend to do it but wanted to arm himself and his colleagues with a threat which would enable them to get business through much quicker at night than they otherwise would. The right hon. Gentleman and I have been in the House for the same length of time, I think. I should have thought that he had learned by now that the one way not to handle the House of Commons is to threaten it. The House does not react well to deterrents or to threats.

Mr. Bob Brown (Newcastle-upon-Tyne): Has not the right hon. Gentleman admitted that morning sittings were a failure because of the deliberate obstruction of the Opposition in debating for lengthy periods matters which in previous years had gone through more or less on the nod? He speaks of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House threatening the House. Is not the right hon. Gentleman on behalf of the Opposition now threatening to frustrate this procedure before it has even been implemented? Would he not concede that whilst we are asking the country to modernise the Opposition are quite happy to let the House stay in the 19th century?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I have rarely heard so many misconceptions expressed in such a comparatively limited intervention. First, I said nothing of the sort which the hon. Gentleman attributes to me about morning sittings. I said that they had been a fiasco, that they were singularly badly attended, as they were particularly by hon. Members opposite, and that they had caused the greatest of hardship to Mr. Speaker, to hon. Members and to the staff of the House. I did not say anything about those proceedings having been obstructed. If the hon. Gentleman studies HANSARD tomorrow, he will see that this is so and that he owes me an apology.
Secondly, I am reacting to a threat. The Leader of the House used the word "deterrent". I am only telling him that, as a matter of experience in the House,

which some of us have had, deterrents are not a very wise or rewarding thing to use against the House, because the House, regardless of party, has a very strong and instinctive reaction to this kind of threat.
If the Leader of the House does not worry about that, which he probably does not, he may like to reflect further on the nature of deterrents. To deter, they must be credible. By the time we have analysed this proposal properly and fully, as I hope we shall, by the time the Leader of the House has addressed his mind to the practical question of what will happen when at 1 o'clock in the morning a Minister decides to invoke this procedure—

Mr. Blackburn: Why one o'clock?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Because that is just the kind of time at which a Minister may well decide to do so.

Mr. Blackburn: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that it would be much more sensible to do it at 10 p.m. each night?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: In that case, perhaps the hon. Gentleman can explain why the Standing Order makes specific provision for this being done after midnight. If the hon. Gentleman is saying that this should not be done after midnight, I wonder why he did not table an Amendment to take out that provision.

Mr. Blackburn: I am willing to accept the Motion as it is. I am dealing with the right hon. Gentleman's argument. He keeps mentioning one o'clock. It seems to me that from his own argument it would be more sensible to do it earlier.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: This is a foolish thing to do at any stage. If the hon. Gentleman prefers, I will say two o'clock. What the hon. Gentleman must address his mind to is that these proposals enable a Minister to do it at any stage, and they make specific provision for this being done after midnight. In other words, the Leader of the House is so clearly contemplating the possibility of doing it after midnight that he has had the forethought to provide in the Standing Order for precisely that contingency.
It is a matter of degree, certainly. I give this to the hon. Gentleman: the later it is done, obviously the worse it


is and the more foolish it is. The hon. Gentleman would find that very great difficulties would arise even if it were done at 10 p.m., as he suggests, when so many of the staff off duty have gone home, and, indeed, when hon. Members have concluded their arrangements for the next day. These difficulties will be nearly as severe at 10 p.m. as they will be at 1 a.m. The hon. Gentleman must realise that the one o'clock contingency is contemplated and very likely to arise, because no Minister will want to do this if he can avoid it. He would much rather get his business the same night. Therefore, it will probably be at a fairly late stage that it will begin to dawn on him that he may not be going to get his business for some time and he may therefore decide to invoke this procedure.
It would indeed be a very faint-hearted Minister who at 10 p.m. decided to invoke this procedure. Any hon. Gentleman with some experience of all-night sittings knows that the House goes in curious tides and moods. Sometimes a Clause takes a very long time and then, that Clause having been debated and voted on, the next stages go through quickly. Any experienced Minister knows that. It would be an extraordinarily rash Minister who decided to adopt this procedure at 10 p.m. But if he did, practically all the considerations I have mentioned would still arise. There would still be very great inconvenience, not only to hon. Members and to the Government, but to those who serve us and to the public at large. This would be aggravated in degree as the night proceeded.
I therefore hope that the Leader of the House will decide not to do this. If he does decide to do this, I shall wait with interest to see whether, in the light of the factors which I hope he now understands, in practice any of his right hon. Friends indulge in the folly of invoking it.

8.7 p.m.

Sir Douglas Glover: I find the Leader of the House fascinating, because, although he has been in the House for 22 years, he has probably spent a shorter amount of time in the Chamber, except when he was making one of his illustrious speeches when the Labour Party was in opposition, than

almost any other Member of the House, even those returned in 1966.
Half the trouble about the right hon. Gentleman's so-called reforms is that he does not understand how this place works. I personally have a good deal of sympathy with what the right hon. Gentleman has in mind. The trouble is that he cannot translate it into a sensible mode of procedure.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) has devoted a good deal of time to explaining the effect this procedure would have on the staff. May I say to the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme), who has now left the Chamber but who might possibly read this in HANSARD, that the idea that all opposition at all times comes from the Opposition benches is a complete non sequitur. In the last Parliament we had an all-night sitting on a Bill connected with judges' remuneration. With the exception of the speech of the hon. Member for Ormskirk, every speech was made from the Government benches. Are hon. Members opposite to be deprived of such opportunities for protest?
Only last week we had a debate on the coal industry, which went on until 7 o'clock in the morning. I admit that, because of the operation of Standing Order No. 9, there had been a three-hour debate earlier in the day, but, even without that three-hour debate, the debate on the coal industry would have continued until 4 or 5 o'clock in the morning. Most of the speeches were made not from this side of the House, but from the Government benches, by hon. Members who wanted to say something on behalf of their constituents and of the the industry with which they were connected. It was an issue about which they felt deeply and they wanted to put their points to the House.
Let us get away once and for all from the idea that, when we are thinking of altering procedure, we are thinking only of the Opposition doing the opposing. Lots of other hon. Members want to oppose from time to time; it is not always the official Opposition.

Mr. Crossman: I know something about that, from personal experience.

Sir D. Glover: With respect, I think that the right hon. Gentleman knows a


good deal more about opposition than he does about leading the House.
The hon. Member for Newcastle-upon-Tyne, West (Mr. Bob Brown) intervened in the speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames and said something about our insisting on staying in the 19th century. I hold the strange view that our predecessors were not all fools and that of lot of our procedure has developed because, after trial and error, they found that it worked.
When I first came to the House, if the Government of the day wanted to continue a debate after 10 o'clock at night, they had to move the suspension of the rule at 3.30 in the afternoon, which meant that they probably had to have a three-line Whip and vote on the suspension. It was ray party which altered that, and now we do it at 10 p.m.
I believe that our forebears were wise when they provided for suspension of the rule at half-past three in the afternoon. If the right hon. Gentleman wants to alter our procedure, he might well look back at the reason why they did it. If the procedure which the right hon. Gentleman is now trying to bring in is to have a cat in hell's chance of working, what will happen? At half-past three in the after-noon, the Leader of the House or the Minister of charge of the Bill will have to move that the House will at 12 o'clock that night adjourn till 10 o'clock the following morning.

Mr. Blackburn: Both the hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames have a misunderstanding about the reference to 12 o'clock. The Motion begins,
 a motion may be made after ten of the clock "—
and the reference to midnight comes only because one has then to think in terms of the same day and not the following morning.

Sir D. Glover: I have got that point. I am referring to 12 o'clock in my argument only because I do not believe that Ministers will call the House back at 10 o'clock the next morning if important business is under way at 10 o'clock at night. They will say that it would be far better to have a couple of hours more that night.
I am trying to be practical here and suggesting how the matter could be formalised. I suggest that, before the sitting starts at the beginning of the day, there would have to be a Motion that, if the business was not completed by midnight, the House would automatically adjourn and meet again at 10 o'clock tomorrow morning.
Although I am not in favour of reducing the powers of the Opposition, that would at least be a logical Motion to put before the House. In those circumstances, it would mean that, at half-past three, the staff would know that the House was likely to meet at 10 o'clock in the morning. Arrangements could be made, and the staffing problems of the House would fall into line. It would be a logical arrangement which would enable various matters to be dealt with.
There is another aspect of the question about which the right hon. Gentleman does not appear to have thought. If under the proposed arrangement now before us, a Minister gets angry, tired, bored, or fed up at midnight or one o'clock—or 10 o'clock, if the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Blackburn) wants it—and suddenly decides off the cuff to adjourn the House and bring it back automatically at 10 o'clock the next morning, what does his Chief Whip do about getting a quorum the following morning?
This is an important point, and I should like the Patronage Secretary to listen to it. Does he send round to the 100 or 120 Members he has in the House at midnight and say, "You boys must be here tomorrow morning at 10 o'clock", or does he try to get the 240 Members who are not in the House back at 10 o'clock in the morning? He will not do the latter, I am sure, because he cannot get hold of them. So the Members who have been here the night before will be whipped to be here at 10 o'clock the following morning. This will apply to both sides.
On the other hand, if the right hon. Gentleman accepted my suggestion for formalising this arrangement by an announcement at half-past three, the Whips on both sides could send out a Whip saying that it was probable that people would have to be here at 10 o'clock the next morning. That would


apply to all Members, part-timers, full-timers, Ministers—the whole shooting match. It would avoid the argument which, I am sure, would otherwise develop on the Government side, with Members feeling angry and frustrated because 120 Members are "carrying the can" and taking the heat and burden of the day while their lawyer colleagues and the rest are all going off and not being touched by these decisions at all.
I shall not pursue that point further. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman has produced an unworkable Standing Order. I accept that the thinking behind what he wants to do has some logic in it, but the right hon. Gentleman does not understand how the House works. It might be a good idea if we started a class in Parliamentary procedure for the Leader of the House. If we did, we might get very much better working of the House.
Any hon. Member worth his salt ought to use the rules of order to the best advantage when opposing the Government of the day. This does not necessarily mean that he wants to be here all night or that he will want to do this or that. But, as one of the duties of the Opposition is to make it difficult for the Government to get their business, it is right and proper that the Opposition should use every advantage of our procedure.
I believe that the effect of the right hon. Gentleman's new proposal will be that, far from getting more business, the Government will get less. At 12 or 1 o'clock at night, I, or the hon. Member for Gosport and Fareham (Dr. Bennett), if he is thinking of intervening in a debate, is under a certain amount of pressure even from his own colleagues. They say, "For heaven's sake, let us pack up and go home". But there will not be that pressure at 10 o'clock in the morning. They will be encouraged by the Opposition Whips to come in and make speeches. There will be a totally different attitude of mind. This is why I say that, if the present proposal is accepted, the Government will get through less business, not more. There will be an atmosphere of more frustration. It is an unworkable scheme, but it could be made workable if the right hon. Gentleman would heed some of the

suggestions which I made at the beginning of my speech about how he could make it work.

8.23 p.m.

Dr. Reginald Bennett: As one who spent a few mornings assisting the House to the best of his poor ability in the sittings so thoughtfully provided by the party opposite last Session, I have seen the demise of morning sittings without shedding a tear. Moreover, I am sure that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, must have suffered long hours to very little advantage in the House at those sittings. We shall all be glad to see the end of them.
The new arrangement proposed by the Leader of the House is, if anything, more dotty than what went before. It is to be interpreted as a veiled threat of a kind quite different from what many of my hon. Friends have yet suggested. Clearly, a lot of highly controversial legislation is to be put before us, and the Government will not allow enough time for it. They are making arrangements in advance. I do not know whether their frightful Budget of next year is already pre-guillotined and will not be discussed in the House. But, apart from that, there is, plainly, a lot of very controversial legislation ahead, not least, perhaps, that magnificent project for the expenditure of taxpayer's money, set forth in the Minister of Transport's latest little volume. All this will be highly objectionable.

Mr. Robert Cooke: What does my hon. Friend mean by "magnificent" in that context?

Dr. Bennett: I mean "grandiose". It is part of the grandiosity from which the Government still suffer.
The obvious threat to hon. Members on both sides is that there will be a great deal of controversial legislation for which the Government do not propose to allow adequate time. We all know that there never need be all-night sittings if a Government allow enough time for the discussion of the business they provide. The Leader of the House and the Patronage Secretary will have no need to call upon the kind of Standing Order proposed if they provide the time the House needs to discuss legislation, and allow more time for controversial legislation. Here


is a clear threat that we shall have inadequate time for controversial legislation, and this artifice is a way of preventing the Opposition having their right of full discussion.
I sympathise with the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Blackburn). Everything he said tonight shows that he is a worthy member of a party in Government who do not wish to have discussion on anything they want to do. He wants to cut it short at 10 o'clock every night.

Mr. Blackburn: The hon. Gentleman could not have listened to my speech. I wonder whether he remains very often at the all-night ordeals.

Dr. Bennett: I hope that some of the hon. Gentleman's Ministerial colleagues will have touching memories of my attention to them at some of the all-night sittings. I shall do my best to add to those memories. The hon. Gentleman was no doubt taking a well-earned rest at the time.
The hon. Gentleman has shown what I regard as one of the most fatuous characteristics of the Motion. If, as he wants, the House rises at 10 p.m. and decides to meet at 10 a.m. the next day, the maximum to which the sitting could extend would be 2 o'clock that afternoon. That is the equivalent of sitting through until 2 o'clock in the morning, which is not generally regarded as very late. I remember that when the Conservatives took over from the Attlee Government rising at 3 a.m. was considered rather early, it was rather a blessing to be able to go home at 3 a.m. when we were debating the Estimates. Rising at 2 o'clock is not at all unreasonable, but that is equivalent to all that will be allowed if we sit from 10 a.m. until 2 p.m. the day after the business has stopped punctually at 10 p.m., as the hon. Gentleman seems to wish.

Mr. Woodburn: Part of the debate is taking place on a misunderstanding. The Motion says:
…after ten of the clock…".
It does not say that we shall adjourn at 10 o'clock. It might be midnight.

Dr. Bennett: While the right hon. Gentleman was out of the Chamber there

was a great deal of pressure from the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde. When my right hon. and hon. Friends said that the Motion to suspend the sitting might be moved at midnight or 1 a.m. he said that he wished it to be moved at 10 o'clock and no later. If that happened, there would be provided at the most a morning sitting equivalent to sitting from 10 p.m. to 2 a.m. The maximum time allowable will be cut down to what we now know as a 2 o'clock morning, which is not regarded as very late on a controversial matter.
Opposition is unwelcome to the Leader of the House. It is always unwelcome to the Government, but he shows that a little more rudely than has been shown in previous Parliaments. We have here the open intention to shorten the Opposition's opportunities to discuss legislation, as is usual while the right hon. Gentleman is Leader of the House.
One of the things that made the last Session's morning sittings profoundly ridiculous was that there was no provision for a quorum. It was usually only hon. Members on this side of the House who wished to discuss, probably adversely, the business before the House. The benches opposite were almost empty all morning, and nothing could be done about it. Are we to understand, as there is nothing to the contrary in the Motion, that a quorum will be required at this new type of morning sitting? Apparently, Divisions will be possible and, therefore, there will be a need to count heads from time to time. Is there no need for the House to be given the courtesy of a quorum? Will it be done away with yet again? That may well be in the right hon. Gentleman's mind.
It is coupled with the point, which my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) touched on lightly, of whether the normal process of having Counts, which are normal to the activity of the House to ensure fuller attendance, will be permitted. We shall later consider a Motion dealing with them. But they concern us now because I imagine that if there are no counts—and some of the later Motions suggest that after 10 p.m. there can be none—the Government will use their absence to prevent any need to have a quorum in the morning sittings, which will reduce them to something like the


fatuity of their predecessors in the last Session.
I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman realises the love which will be felt for him and his Government in the constituencies, from which busloads of visitors come to see the House, often by arrangements made months in advance. They cannot possibly be put off and they will arrive, hoping to be shown around, only to be turned away because the House is sitting.

Mr. David Webster: Under the Transport Bill there will not be any more coaches to bring them here.

Dr. Bennett: I suppose that it will be only people from the London constituencies who will visit the House after the Bill goes on the Statute Book.
One way or another, the Government will do a great deal of harm to the good people from all constituencies who from time to time wish to visit the Houses of Parliament. They will have no warning, but will be turned away with the utmost discourtesy, for it is a discourtesy to turn them away without warning, no matter how tactful the servants of the House may be. I strongly resent this. It is a minor but very bad feature of this idiotic Motion that that should be allowed to take place. Therefore, my right hon. and hon. Friends should vote the Motion down if they can.

8.28 p.m.

Mr. Crossman: Perhaps I may now reply to the points raised, and explain as fully as I can, or reveal the secrets of, what is in my right hon. Friend the Patronage Secretary's mind as well as mine on how this Standing Order would work. First, I shall take the point about visitors put by the hon. Member for Gosport and Fareham (Dr. Bennett). If we suspend a sitting in the middle of the night and resume next morning, or continue and have an all-night sitting, from time to time visitors will be incommoded either way. It will make no difference whether there is an interval or not. I take it that the hon. Gentleman would not wish us to suspend an all-night sitting rather than have visitors incommoded.
All of us welcome visitors, but I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree that

we cannot turn this place into a museum. We need it for the purposes of Parliament and the House must undertake those purposes. It is important for him to realise that all-night sittings which overrun into the morning have the same effect on visiting as interrupted sittings resumed in the morning would have.

Dr. Bennett: But all-night sittings— with rare exceptions of which I have memory—have in the vast preponderance of cases ended between 5 a.m. and 8 a.m. Very few run after 11 a.m.

Mr. Woodburn: Is not the hon. Gentleman mistaken in his assumption, in any case, in that if an all-night sitting is suspended for resumption in the morning visitors will be able to get into the Strangers Gallery?

Mr. Crossman: We already have arrangements whereby visitors are not able to come into the Chamber on Friday mornings. There is an alternative route for them when the House is sitting, although admittedly it is not as good and may disappoint them. The hon. Gentleman admitted that his was a secondary argument, and it must remain so because Parliamentary business must prevail.
I have listened with great pleasure to the speeches opposite. I have never been showered with such kindly solicitude or such contemptuous, condescending, compassion as on this proposal. It is said that this proposal would be of enormous advantage to the Opposition. Therefore it bewilders me to hear their arguments, because I thought that they were such a strenuous Opposition. One would think that by this proposal the Opposition would be positively benefited, yet they say that this is the most idiotic, stupid, insane and silly proposal, and they will revel in it. Very well, let them revel.
We have had great jokes about the proposal. We have been told about the fun Opposition Members will have, and how they will run rings round us. We shall see. The hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) is always contemptuous about what he regards as my little experience of the House. I have had this from him several times. Let him have his pleasure. Apparently I am a simple man led by cleverer people. Let us see what happens when the great brains opposite try to defeat us.
No one has mentioned that last Session's morning sittings did not in fact dislocate Government business. That was not their weakness. They gave the Government a great deal of business very cheaply indeed. Therefore, the picture of myself as an innocent whose morning sittings were destroying Government business is not borne out by an analysis of the history of the last months of last Session. Indeed, we were getting through Government business so easily that I was somewhat anxious, and thought that we should have to wind up morning sittings because of that.

Dr. Bennett: Cheaply in what sense?

Mr. Crossman: Cheaply in terms of the time spent on Bills. I gave a list giving information of the amount of time we spent. There has also been talk about the number of people who attended the morning sittings. I made some statistical observations concerning the Members who attended morning sittings and those liable to be in the Chamber between midnight and 2 a.m. if the same business had been done then. I found that there was no marked difference.
What was the point of morning sittings.? It was that, since the House was inadequately attended for inconvenient secondary business in the night, we should have that business at a more convenient time. No one thought that the number of hon. Members attending would be much different whether we had the business at a morning sitting or between 1 a.m. and 4 a.m. That was not the test.
There were two tests. The first was on the dislocation of Government business, and that did not happen. On the contrary, the Government were getting their business remarkably easily. My worry was that it was not achieving the objective of cutting down late nights, which was the second test. We were still laving late nights. But the Government were getting their business and there was no dislocation there.
I would point out to those who have talked about the dislocated programme of an ignoramus that we got more legislation through in the last Session than had ever been done before in one Session. Perhaps too much. But we are being laughed at by the professionals opposite. I would only say to them that

if we get through as much business this Session as in last Session I shall be glad to be called an ignoramus. I am told that I know nothing about the job of Government, but my job is to "take" what I am called provided we succeed, and in terms of success and failure I am prepared to stand by the record of Government business during the last months of last Session when there were morning sittings.
The right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) and the right hon. and learned Member for Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) have had their jokes and have thought the Motion funny. I listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Ormskirk with great attention, because I think that he has an interest in what might be called the psychological warfare of Parliamentary procedure. He sees it in terms which I, too, used to study. I thought that in the course of his speech I recognised the half-digested beginning of thinking out this problem and, if he goes as far as we did, he may come to the same conclusions.
But I will not tell him in advance what our strategy and tactics are to be. Why should I? I will leave him to his innocent enjoyment of the future, looking forward to how hon. Members opposite will defeat the poor innocents on this side and use this Motion to stop our business. Let them try! All I am saying now is that it is possible that at we have thought out in advance some of the thoughts which he mentioned to us, but we are not prepared to reveal our conclusions. Why should we tell him?

Sir Edward Brown: Will the Leader of the House give us some sincere direction as Leader of the House and not make a mockery of this procedure? We are debating what he wants to put across to the House; he is not being sincere in what he is now saying.

Mr. Crossman: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for asking for a certain amount of sincere, direct, open speech from my side of the House. I have been listening to a torrent of contemptuous abuse. I have been delighted to receive it, but it is only fair to reply in kind. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman missed those speeches and has just come into the Chamber; he has missed an interesting debate. I do not intend, and in defending


this Motion I do not have to, to reveal in advance the tactics which we shall use in seeking to deter these late night sittings.
The right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) said that the House did not like deterrents and resented and reacted badly against Ministers who use language of that kind. I think that he is right and that it is better to use them without talking too much about them. Let me give an example. When in office the Tory Party did not apply any deterrents. It believed in "dropping the atom bomb" and not merely threatening with it. Right hon. Gentlemen opposite had 15 Guillotines: so far we have had three. We have used the deterrent more successfully than they used the actual bomb. They dropped the bomb at regular intervals and made themselves very unpopular.
We have saved ourselves from dropping it because the Patronage Secretary knows the art of suggesting the use of the Guillotine at a point when its use is then made unnecessary. I congratulate him on the art with which he got the Steel Bill through with a Guillotine. A lesser man like me, simpler and cruder and more ingenuous, might have been driven exacerbated to losing his temper in a moment and clapping on the Guillotine, as the right hon. Member suggested, but the Patronage Secretary sits there silent until he puts a word into my mouth, or into the mouth of the Minister, knowing just how to get the Steel Bill through without a Guillotine.
I do not want to mention a word like "deterrent" because we now have the voluntary timetable. I do not like to say that there is anything behind the voluntary timetable, because there is, but I am not allowed to say so. All I shall say is that it works very well, and I am not prepared to think that it will not work in this case, even if I am laughed at for its existence.
What are we to do? We are here taking the power to suspend a sitting whenever it is thought appropriate, and the reason we are taking it is simply and solely in order to deter or prevent not the all-night sitting, because, as I have said, we do not want to prevent the all-night sitting, but the late-night sitting, the sitting which ends at 2 or 3 or 4 o'clock

and which is the result of the conditions which I have described. I am told that this Motion will have no effect or exacerbate them; we shall see.
Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen need not worry too much about the staff of the House of Commons. We have consulted the staff and there are no technical difficulties whatever. Some will be on rota and some will carry through, and what happens now on an all-night sitting can happen on an interrupted sitting. If there can be staff for an all-night sitting there can be staff for an interrupted sitting for a few hours in the morning.
I am confident, from what I have learned, that the staff would definitely prefer the risks—yes, there are risks and gambles in what we are now doing from their point of view—to the prospect of the alternative which they suffered last summer. I think that they are right to prefer it, because they do not take quite the same view of the way we may conduct business as the hon. Member for Ormskirk. They take the view that we may succeed in what we are up to. He is confident, of course, with his wisdom, with his cleverness, with his supreme understanding of procedure, that he will defeat the Government.
Right, we will just wait and see when the test comes, when the Report stages come and the times when these things might be necessary. We will see whether it actually happens. We are not concerned with stopping all-night sittings. All-night sittings, especially what I call the private Members all-night sitting, is a right which private Members will always enforce, and should be allowed to do so.
This is why I said on the question of sending the Finance Bill upstairs, that I would certainly fight for the right of a private Member to continue to have his say on the Finance Bill, even if it meant sitting up all night on Report. I am certain that there will be at least one all-night sitting on Report, if I know the spirit which private Members show in making the kind of speeches that they do on that occasion. That is why we have left that provision; that is why I got that recognised in the Consolidated Fund Bill.
We are not dealing with this, but with something quite different. We are dealing with die situation where one has a


certain amount of business which could be got through perfectly sensibly and competently in a couple of hours, but people protract it for four or five hours, or more, to the great inconvenience of all the rest of us. I am told that this little Motion will greatly assist all those who want to sabotage the Budget and that I should be grateful to those who oppose it. We do not agree, and we will be able to test who is right and who is wrong when we have passed this Motion and the months have passed and we come to the time when such happenings are likely.

Mr. Turton: Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why the Select Committee on Procedure, on which his own side are in a majority, were quite wrong in coming to this conclusion?

Mr. Crossman: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman, because it was on my notes to reply to him on that point about the automatic stop at 12 o'clock midnight. May I reveal a secret to him. Our intentions in applying this Motion are very different from an automatic stop. The whole art of this Motion is that the stop is not automatic. It is the automatic stop at 12 which gives all the power to the Opposition. It is the lack of automaticity, or shall we say the holding of discretion on this side, which gives the initiative, or might do, to this side.
It is no good arguing any more, because the great thing is to test who is right and who is wrong. I am willing to have a little wager behind Mr. Speaker's Chair with the hon. Member for Ormskirk, if he is prepared to, that by the end of this Session he will be able to make this same speech, but from the other side of his face.

Dr. Bennett: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman to deal with the point about Quorums and Counts?

Mr. Crossman: It is strictly out of order, because a following Motion deals with Counts. If the next but one were carried there would be no Counts but there will be Divisions, and if there are Divisions that is a perfectly good substitute for a Count in testing whether the House is there.

8.44 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: I had hoped to catch your eye before the right

hon. Gentleman rose, Mr. Speaker, but there are one or two points of his argument which seem so extraordinary that I must deal with them. It seems to have been assumed by those who support this Motion, including the right hon. Gentleman, that it is necessary to have morning sittings in order to stop all-night sittings.
There are many of use who are in favour of some formula to prevent unnecessary all-night sittings, but it does not necessarily follow that one has to threaten a morning sitting in order to get rid of an all-night sitting. It is accepted that morning sittings have been a failure, an almightly flop, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) said.
The Leader of the House on 14th November said as much. He said:
 It will not surprise the House when I now announce that we have decided not to renew that particular Sessional Order—
that is, the Order for morning sittings. Later, he said that.
… morning sittings, in the form in which we tried them, failed to do their job".— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th Nov. 1967; Vol 754, c. 244–57.]
He comes before the House today in praise of them and says how cheaply the Government got their business. This is not the way to treat the House. The House is a debating Chamber. It is not some place in which the Government steamroller through their business without any of their back bench Members present.
After saying that it was a failure, the right hon. Gentleman went on to say:
 Finally, we propose a new Standing Order which will permit a morning sitting as a direct substitute for a late sitting on the night before.
So it is now suggested that we should have morning sittings, not announced in advance as they were before, but at a moment's notice, not non-controversial, as they had been, but controversial, with Divisions and, apparently, with Counts.
I must refer to a passage in the speech of the Leader of the House on 14th November, in which he said that this procedure would not be used very frequently; it was to be used only as a deterrent. He continued with what I think was a slur on the House and on hon. Members. He said that it would be
… a means of reducing the number of occasions when hard working whole-time


Members are kept hanging around the Palace of Westminster by a handful of Members, some of them amateurs, inspired by that unique combination of post-prandial high spirits and moral indigation which, late at night, can keep a debate going long after the topic is exhausted.
That was a smear on the House. Here is the Leader of the House coming as a sort of bullying headmaster and saying, "Come to my study in the morning". The reference to amateur Members shows what is in his mind. He hopes, by this sort of threat, to prevent those who have interests outside the House from attending to them during the morning.

Mr. Ted Leadbitter: Would the hon. Gentleman bear in mind that the constituencies send their Members to Parliament to represent them in Parliament and not to pursue part-time jobs outside the House? Although the House may be tolerant of this practice, would he not agree that it is quite wrong for such hon. Members to come into the House late at night, having been absent all day, to keep full-time Members sitting at their pleasure?

Mr. Page: I find that I can serve the House better if I bring to it up-to-date knowledge of a practical profession than by sitting in the Tea Room all morning.
The Motion is relevant only to exempted business, because other business will stop at 10 o'clock anyway. Exempted business is business which the House thinks so important that it should discuss it and continue to discuss it after 10 o'clock. Therefore, having decided that it is important business, either by suspending the rule at 10 o'clock or by Standing Orders, the business is to be suspended at the whim of a Minister.
What the Leader of the House professed to wish to stop in all-night sittings was expressed when he said:

"What we should seek to prevent is not the deliberate, determined, all-night sitting as a method of opposition, but the haphazard late-night sitting dragging on to the early hours."— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th November, 1967; Vol. 754, c. 255–6.]

There is no distinction in the Motion between a "deliberate, determined, all-night sitting" and a "haphazard" sitting. A debate is none the worse for being haphazard. Hon. Members may wish to make constituency speeches which they do not have an opportunity to make in other debates, and there is no harm in their making them at a late hour. It is not always evident in debate where the chink in one's opponent's armour is until the debate has proceeded for some time. It may be haphazard in prodding and thrusting to see where are the weak points of one's opponent. One goes on thrusting, perhaps in a haphazard way, until the thrust sinks in. I would not have thought a debate any the worse for being haphazard.

Perhaps I ought to have read out a previous sentence in the right hon. Gentleman's speech on 14th November, when he said:
I think that there come times—maybe they will come this Session—when a Government Measure arouses such profound opposition that the all-night sitting becomes a perfectly legitimate weapon of opposition."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 14th November, 1967; Vol. 754, c. 256.]
Not there come times. The time has come when all the Measures of this Government arouse such profound opposition that we do not wish to be deprived of this perfectly legitimate weapon for opposing those Measures.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 230, Noes 126.

Division No. 18.]
AYES
[8.50 p.m.


Albu, Austen
Bessell, Peter
Buchan, Norman


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Bidwell, Sydney
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)


Alldritt, Walter
Binns, John
Cant, R. B.


Anderson, Donald
Bishop, E. S.
Carmichael, Neil


Archer, Peter
Blackburn, F.
Carter-Jones, Lewis


Armstrong, Ernest
Blenkinsop, Arthur
Coe, Denis


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Boardman, H.
Coleman, Donald


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Booth, Albert
Concannon, J. D.


Bagler, Gordon A. T.
Boston, Terence
Contan, Bernard


Barnes, Michael
Boyden, James
Corbet, Mrs. Freda


Barnett, Joel
Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)


Baxter, William
Brooks, Edwin
Grossman, Rt. Hn. Richard


Beaney, Alan
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Cullen, Mrs. Alice


Bellenger, Rt. Hn. F. J.
Brown,Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Daiyell, Tam


Bence, Cyril
Brown, R. W. (Shoredltch &amp; F'bury)
Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)




Davidson James(Aberdeenshire,W.)
Irvine, Sir Arthur
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Davies, C. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Paget, R. T.


Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&amp;St.P'cras,S.)
Palmer, Arthur


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Johnson, Carol (Lewlsham, S.)
Panned, Rt. Hn. Charles


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Pardoe, John


Dell, Edmund
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Park, Trevor


Dempsey, James
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Dewar, Donald
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Judd, Frank
Pavitt, Laurence


Dobson, Ray
Kelley, Richard
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Doig, Peter
Kenyon, Clifford
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Dunn, James A.
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Pentland, Norman


Dunnett, Jack
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Leadbitter, Ted
Price, William (Rugby)


Eadie, Alex
Ledger, Ron
Probert, Arthur


Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)
Randall, Harry


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lee, John (Reading)
Rankin, John


Ellis, John
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Rees, Merlyn


Ensor, David
Lomas, Kenneth
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Loughlin, Charles
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Lubbock, Eric
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Ewing, Mrs. Winifred
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)


Fernyhough, E.
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Pinch, Harold
McCann, John
Rose, Paul


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Macdonald, A. H.
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McGuire, Michael
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)


Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
McKay, Mrs. Margaret
Ryan, John


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Shaw, Arnold (llford, S.)


Forrester, John
Mackintosh, John P.
Sheldon, Robert


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Maclennan, Robert
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward(N 'c' tie-u-Tyne)


Galpern, Sir Myer
MacMilian, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Gardner, Tony
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Garrett, W. E.
McNamara, J. Kevin
Slater, Joseph


Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
MacPhereon, Malcolm
Small, William


Gregory, Arnold
Mahon, Peter (Preston, 8.)
Spriggs, Leslie


Grey, Charles (Durham)
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mallalieu,J.P.W.(Huddersfield,E.)
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mapp, Charles
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael


Mantling, William
Marks, Kenneth
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Hannan, William
Mason, Roy
Swain, Thomas


Harper, Joseph
Maxwell, Robert
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mendelson, J. J.
Tinn, James


Haseldine, Norman
Mikardo, Ian
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Hattersley, Roy
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Hazell, Bert
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Watkins, David (Consett)


Heffer, Eric S.
Molloy, William
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Henig, Stanley
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Weitzman, David


Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Wellbeloved, James


Hilton, W. S.
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
White, Mrs. Eirene


Hooley, Frank
Moyle, Roland
Whitlock, William


Hooson, Emlyn
Murray, Albert
Wilkins, W. A.


Horner, John
Neal, Harold
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Newens, Stan
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Norwood, Christopher
Winniok, David


Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Oakes, Gordon
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Ogden, Eric
Winterbottom, R. E.


Howie, W.
O'Malley, Brian
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Hoy, James
Oram, Albert E.
Yates, Victor


Huckfield, Leslie
Orbach, Maurice



Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Orme, Stanley
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Oswald, Thomas
Mr. Eric G. Varley and Mr. Neil McBride.


Hunter, Adam
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)





NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Burden, F. A.
Elliott.R.W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne.N.)


Aator, John
Campbell, Gordon
Emery, Peter


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Carlisle, Mark
Errington, Sir Erie


Awdry, Daniel
Chichester-Clark, R.
Eyre, Reginald


Baker, W. H. K.
Clegg, Walter
Farr, John


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Cooke, Robert
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Got, &amp; Fhm)
Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Fortescue, Tim


Bitten, John
Cordle, John
Gibson-Watt, David


Biggs-Davison, John
Costain, A. P.
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)


Black, Sir Cyril
Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Glover, Sir Douglas


Blaker, Peter
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Sir Oliver
Glyn, Sir Richard


Boardman, Thomas (Leicester, S.W.)
Crouch, David
Goodhew, Victor


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Cunningham, Sir Knox
Cower, Raymond


Bromley - Davenport, Lt.-Col. Sir Walter
Dance, James
Grant, Anthony


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Doughty, Charles
Gresham Cooke, R.


Buchanan-Smith, Allck(Angus, NAM)
Drayson, G. B.
Grieve, Percy


Buck, Antony (Colchester)
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)


Bullus, Sir Erie
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Gurden, Harold







Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
MacArthur, Ian
Silvester, Frederick


Harris, Reader (Heston)
McMaster, Stanley
Smith, John


Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Maddan, Martin
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)


Harvey, Sir Arthur Vera
Mawby, Ray
Summers, Sir Spencer


Hastings, Stephen
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Temple, John M.


Heseltine, Michael
More, Jasper
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Hiley, Joseph
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Tilney, John


Holland, Philip
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Hordern, Peter
Murton, Oscar
Vickers, Dame Joan


Hornby, Richard
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Hunt, John
Neave, Airey
Walters, Dennis


Hutchison, Michael Clark
Nott, John
Weatherill, Bernard


Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Osborn, John (Hallam)
Webster, David


Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Woodnutt, Mark


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Prior, J. M. L.
Worsley, Marcus


Lane, David
Pym, Francis
Wright, Esmond


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Quennell, Miss J. M.
Wylie, N. R.


Lloyd, lan (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Younger, Hn. George


Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
Royle, Anthony



Loveys, W. H.
Sharples, Richard
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


McAdden, Sir Stephen
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Mr. Timothy Kitson and Mr. Hector Monro.

Resolved,

That, during the remainder of the present Session.

(1) a motion may be made after ten of the clock by a Minister of the Crown, That the proceedings of this day's sitting be suspended, and the question thereon shall be decided without amendment or debate; and if the question be agreed to in the House, a motion may immediately thereafter be made, That this House do now adjourn, and, at the conclusion of the debate on that motion and in no case later than half an hour after the motion has been made, the motion shall lapse and Mr. Speaker shall suspend the sitting till ten of the clock on the following morning, or, if it be after midnight, till ten of the clock in the morning of the same day;

(2) if the question on a motion, made likewise in a Committee of the whole House, That the proceedings of the Committee be suspended, be so decided in the affirmative, the Chairman shall leave the chair and make a report to that effect, whereupon Mr. Speaker shall forthwith put the question, That the proceedings of this day's sitting be suspended. and the House shall proceed thereon in accordance with the provisions of paragraph (1) of this Order, and, if the question be agreed to, a motion for the adjournment of the House may be made and the sitting shall afterwards be suspended as aforesaid; but, if that question be negatived, the House shall immediately again resolve itself into the Committee;

(3) on the resumption of the sitting the House shall forthwith resume the suspended proceedings and may afterwards proceed with the remaining business of the sitting which has been suspended: Provided that
(a) on a Motion being made by a Minister of the Crown, That this House do now adjourn, Mr. Speaker shall put the question thereon forthwith; or
(b) on the conclusion of the business Mr. Speaker shall adjourn the House without putting any question; or

(c) if the business has not been concluded before two of the clock Mr. Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings at that hour, or, if the House be in committee, the chairman shall leave the chair and report progress and ask leave to sit again, and Mr. Speaker shall thereafter adjourn the House without putting any question.

Standing Order No. 2 (Exempted business)

9.3 p.m.

The First Secretary of State (Mr. Michael Stewart): I beg to move,
That Standing Order No. 2 (Exempted business) be amended as follows: —
Line 17, leave out from 'provides' to end of line 22 and insert ' but Mr. Speaker shall put any questions necessary to dispose of such proceedings not later than half-past eleven of the clock or one and a half hours after the commencement of those proceedings, whichever is the later:
Provided that, if Mr. Speaker shall be of opinion that, because of the importance of the subject matter of the motion, the time for debate has not been adequate, he shall, instead of putting the question as aforesaid, interrupt the business, and the debate shall stand adjourned till the next sitting (other than a Friday);
(c) proceedings in pursuance of any Standing Order of this House which provides that proceedings though opposed may be decided after the expiration of the time for opposed business;'.
The effect of this alteration, if the House agrees to make it, is that the House would in future be able to handle Orders subject to the affirmative procedure in the way that we can now handle Orders subject to the negative procedure; that is to say, that the debate would normally last an hour and a half unless Mr. Speaker judged that at the end of that


time there had not been adequate debate, in which case further facilities and time would have to be provided.
The House knows that the number of Statutory Instruments of all kinds has been increasing steadily over a great many years under Governments of all complexions.
While I am on this point, might I correct something that I said in our last debate about Orders. On 6th December I said that it was possible by Order in the House and not even by Statute to raise the rates of National Insurance contributions. I was in error about that, except for the contributions of certain special groups of contributors, such as mariners. I am sorry for having misled the House on that occasion.
This growth of Orders, without which it would be impossible to provide for the government of the modern State, has created the problem of how to deal with them in a way that does not waste time, but gives the House the proper control. As far back as 1954 the House decided, concerning Orders subject to the negative procedure, that the Prayer should last, as the Standing Orders now provide, for an hour and a half, subject to the discretion of Mr. Speaker to rule that the topic has not had a proper opportunity for debate.

Mr, Blackburn: Was it not 1951 and not 1954?

Mr. Stewart: I trust I shall not mislead the House again. My hon. Friend is a great authority, but my information —and I believe it to be correct—is that this was a Sessional Order made in 1954.

Mr. Graham Page: In fact it was 1953.

Mr. Stewart: I do not know whether I ought to pause for a moment to see if there are any further suggestions.

Mr. Woodborn: There was such an Order anyway.

Mr. Stewart: If my hon. Friend is right, that strengthens the point that it is even longer than I had supposed since we decided to deal with Orders subject to the negative procedure in this way.
Since the House first debated the present proposal, it will be seen that the Motion has been expanded to give this discretion to Mr. Speaker. This is the

way that it will be bound to work. The Government of the day, whatever party they might be, will not want to land themselves in the position of trying to get an affirmative Order through in an hour and a half, to be told by Mr. Speaker at the end of that time that this had not given sufficient opportunity to discuss so important a subject and that they must, therefore, provide further time.
The Government would consider in advance, "Is this an affirmative Order of such importance that it would not be sensible to try to get it through in an hour and a half?" and would then provide for more time if they decided that it would not be sensible, because the proposed new Order does not prescribe that all Motions dealing with affirmative Orders must go through in an hour and a half.
It would be open to the Government, perhaps after consultation through the usual channels, to decide that for this or that affirmative Order more time should be allowed, and if they mistook the temper of the House, or, in Mr. Speaker's judgment, mistook the importance of the Order, they would find that they could not get it through in an hour and a half. In effect, therefore, this Motion means that if an affirmative Order is of such a nature that in Mr. Speaker's judgment it can be adequately debated in an hour and a half, that will be the time limit for the debate.
There remain, of course, certain other very important Orders which the House discusses, for example the general grant for local authorities, or Orders continuing the Armed Forces Acts, and these will continue to have a full day's debate.
I think I have explained the nature of the Motion. I think it will be simplest if I say no more at this stage, but, like my hon. Friend, listen to the debate and hope to have the opportunity, if necessary, to reply at the end of it.

9.7 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: As the right hon. Gentleman has explained, the purpose of this Motion, as I see it, is to place the same restraint on a debate in which the Government are required to ask the House by affirmative Resolution to approve an Order as is put at present, by Standing Order 100, on a debate in


which the Opposition, or indeed any backbench Member, asks the House by negative Resolution to nullify an Order.
Briefly, it is that such debates shall end at 11.30, or, a slight variation under this Motion as compared with Standing Order 100, that the debate may run for an hour and a half. The difference is that in the one case Parliament has, by the parent Statute, required the Government to bring the Order, or draft Order, before the House. In the other case the parent Statute has given the Government power to create law, subject only to somebody in the House praying that the Order be annulled.
It may be astonishing to some right hon. and hon. Members who have not had cause to look into this matter in detail to know the different kinds of Statutory Instruments which there can be, and the different types of procedure for dealing with them in the House, if they come before the House at all. There are many which do not even require to be laid before the House. There are many for which, although they are required to be laid, there is no Parliamentary procedure for annulment, and all that can be done is to put down an early day Motion. But we are not concerned with those under this Motion. We are concerned with comparing those which can be annulled by a negative Resolution with those which require an affirmative Resolution.
Even in those two classes, there are many different kinds. Among those which require an affirmative Resolution, some are brought in in draft and cannot be made operative unless an affirmative Resolution is passed by each House or, in some cases, by the Commons only; some are made but will not operate unless an affirmative Resolution of approval is passed in each House; and some are made and are in operation and will continue in operation for only a number of days unless kept alive by an affirmative Resolution of each House.
These are the various types which require an affirmative Resolution, and, in considering them, the Select Committee, in its first Report, in August, 1966, said, in paragraph 15(iii):
 unopposed Affirmative Resolutions do not normally take long. Those proceedings should

not be limited in time pending further consideration of delegated legislation by Your Committee, since the affirmative resolution procedure is deliberately provided for Orders more important than those subject only to the negative procedure.
That is the distinction, as recognised by the Committee—that the affirmative Resolution is required for Orders which are of more importance.
This was clearly shown in the Report of the Select Committee on Delegated Legislation as long ago as 1953, when the type of Order which conventionally requires an affirmative Resolution was set out in evidence by the late Sir Alan Ellis and accepted by the Committee. He divided them into three different classes, placing in the first the powers which, when exercised, will substantially affect the provisions of an Act of Parliament, whether by altering its language or increasing or limiting its extent or duration or otherwise.
His second class was composed of powers to impose financial charges, such as Purchase Tax Orders and other such Orders, and his third class consisted of skeleton powers, where the parent Act fixes the purpose and leaves the whole substance of the law to be dealt with by subordinate legislation. He quoted the Development Council Order under the Development Act of 1947. Recently, we have seen a number of very important Orders requiring affirmative Resolution, such as those on Rhodesia and those under the Prices and Incomes Act.
Incidentally, there is still the power to make Orders under the Emergency Powers Act, the sort which must be approved within seven days and last for only a month. I trust that it is not suggested that those would ever be dealt with on the one and a half hour procedure after ten o'clock—

Mr. M. Stewart: Mr. M. Stewartindicated dissent.

Mr. Page: What has happened in the past is that, through the usual channels, important Orders of this sort have been given a full day or half day of debate.
I wonder, however—this is where we feel a little suspicious—whether they would have been given that time by this Government if this Motion had already been accepted, that is to say, if they could have been put on at night after ten o'clock with a probability that the


debate would last for only an hour and a half. Under the present procedure and convention with regard to affirmative Resolutions, there have been very few occasions when the House has been inconvenienced by affirmative Resolutions going on after 11.30 p.m. There might have been, had the draft Orders been brought on at 10, but because there has been the risk of the debate going on late at night, the Government have found time for them at other times of the day. I suspect that this Standing Order may be used for putting on at night debates which should be given a full day's or half a day's debate and which, up to now, have been debated during the daytime. Otherwise I cannot see the purpose of this new Standing Order, because there has not been any mischief from the fact that affirmative Resolutions can run until after 11.30 at night.
For 14 years—from either December 1953 or January 1954—this Standing Order No. 100 has been a basis of argument when Bills have proposed to delegate legislation to a Minister. Time and again, when this Clause has appeared in Bills giving power to Ministers to use Statutory Instruments to create law we have argued from both sides in Committee upstairs and on Report on the Floor of the House that this ought not to be delegated legislation but should go into the Bill; that we should know for what we are legislating. The answer has been that if a matter requires an affirmative Resolution the Minister must bring it before the House and it must be debated.
That form of compromise has been accepted by critics of a Bill on many occasions. The argument of flexibility for the Minister and the argument of urgency to get a Bill on the Statute Book without writing long schedules into it have been smoothed over by the hon. Members being told, "If there is the affirmative Resolution procedure here you will know what the law will be." I am sure that on many occasions, if it had been known at the time that the affirmative Resolution could be restricted in time, that compromise could not have been brought about. There would have been greater insistence that the matter should be in the Bill.
The power—to extend the time and adjourn for a further period of debate— which is given to you, Mr. Speaker, if

the Motion is accepted and if we adopt this new Standing Order is, I submit, no real safeguard. I say that because this has only very exceptionally been used in respect of the negative procedure. It is in the Order relating to the negative procedure, but in fact, you, Mr. Speaker, or your Deputy, have not found on many occasions that, even though hon. Members are rising to their feet, you were justified in saying that the debate should continue or be adjourned until another day.
The second reason why it is not a real safeguard is because material points in debate may not emerge in an important debate lasting for one and a half hours. When thinking of a debate lasting for one and a half hours, one must accept that there might be four 15-minute speeches from the Front Benches, followed by a couple of Privy Councillors. After that there would not be much chance for a backbencher to get in and make his points. It may be that Mr. Speaker, having heard four speeches from the Front Benches and two Privy Councillors, will think that there has been enough of that debate and that the subject has been fully discussed without the need to hear the real points which might come forward from the backbenches.
The third reason why it is no real safeguard is because the steam goes out of a debate when it is adjourned. This would please a Government if they are embarrassed by a debate on an important matter. They might be pleased to have it adjourned until the atmosphere had cooled off the next morning, but this is bad for debate and does not make for a good discussion.
The fourth reason why I say it is no safeguard is the inconvenience caused to hon. Members in rearranging business after a debate is adjourned. In this case, it would not be adjourned to die following morning but to a later date. It is a great inconvenience to hon. Members when a debate is broken in that way. For these reasons, first, because there has been no inconvenience up to the present in allowing an affirmative Resolution debate to run for more than one and a half hours, and, secondly, that that it might be used to the prejudice particularly of back bench Members in future, I hope that the House will reject


the Motion and will leave the rules as they stand.

9.20 p.m.

Mr. Blackburn: Everyone must recognise that the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) is an expert on the question of Orders, but I do not think that he has made a very convincing case for the rejection of this Motion. I do not think that my right hon. Friend the First Secretary need worry particularly about debates on many Orders which could not be completed, even on affirmative Orders, in an hour and a half.
You, Mr. Speaker, will agree that if you did not have to spend so much time trying to get hon. Members to debate Orders instead of the Bills on which they are based, many of these debates would be completed much more quickly than they are at present. I suggested that the date was 1951 or early in 1952 because I remembered that it was one of the early actions taken by the Conservative Government in 1951, when Mr. Harry Crookshank was Leader of the House.
I think that memories went back to what had happened in the last days of the Labour Government, when there had been this harrying process. He persuaded the Labour Opposition that it would be a good idea to try this experiment. I believe that he thought he was getting away with quite a lot when the Labour Opposition agreed to it for negative Orders. That can have been the only explanation why only for negative Orders, rather than for all Orders, a proposal for a one-and-a-half hours' debate was put forward.
I hope that the House will accept this Motion. I am sure that on very important Orders, such as those on Rhodesia and prices and incomes, the Government will do as they did last Session and provide time during the day for the main debate. There are certain Orders which would necessarily require more than an hour and a half to debate. I feel sure that the Government, in consultation with the Opposition, would recognise their importance and be prepared to find additional time to debate them.
I am wholeheartedly in support of the Motion, although it is not exactly what I should like. I should like to send all

these Orders to Committee, so that we could get through out business in reasonable time. I cannot see why we should have one set of rules for negative Orders and another for affirmative Orders, even though affirmative Orders, by Statute, have to be brought before the House. Therefore, I hope the House will accept the suggested addition of these Orders.

9.24 p.m.

Sir Lionel Heald: I shall be brief in supporting the Amendment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page)—which has not been selected—because it would be an impertinence for me to try to add anything to the speech made by my hon. Friend. He is probably the greatest living expert on this subject, but I think that I should underline matters of principle which are involved.
We are dealing with delegated legislation. Any further restriction on discussion of delegated legislation is something we all ought to resist. Anyone who is not in the Government, but who sits on either side of the House should resist it strongly. When one hears my hon. Friend say, "There it is, now we must accept it" we know that there are some delegated legislation Orders which can go through the House without any discussion at all. Not many years ago hon. Members on both sides of the House would have protested against that. I suppose that in modern days with our magnificent white-hot systems of government we have to have that, otherwise we would never get through the work.
If we are to have it, we must have an opportunity of discussing it. The first consideration, therefore, is: is there a justification for further curtailing the opportunities of the House to discuss these things? I have always had the highest respect for the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Blackburn). I have sat with him on the Select Committee on Procedure. I was horrified to hear him, of all Members, say that an Order altering the law and the rights of the subject ought not to be discussed on the Floor of the House, but should be sent to a Standing Committee.

Mr. Blackburn: I remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman that a Standing Committee would be formed by Members of Parliament.

Sir L. Heald: It is not a question of who it is formed by. It is a question of what the form of it is and what the effect of it is. I would require to be satisfied on any occasion of the justification for any further curtailment of the opportunities of Members of the House to discuss in the House and as a House of Commons, not as a Committee, increased powers, perhaps to levy taxation. We are not told what is to be done until the Order is laid. These are what they call skeleton powers. "Skeleton" is the right word.
The second point is the difference between an affirmative Resolution and a negative Resolution. In effect—I use the words carefully—this proposal has an assimilating effect. It is blurring the difference between them. This matter was discussed in 1953. I have a personal reason for remembering it. I was quite clear at that time that there was a very big difference between the two things and that there was intended to be. This is the beginning of a new approach. There is to be no difference. It is a gradual shading down. The House should be very careful before it agrees to something which increases the tendency towards dictatorial powers in the Government. I therefore support my hon. Friend the Member for Crosby.

9.23 p.m.

Mr. Woodburn: There is undue apprehension about the Motion. I was a member of the Committee on Delegated Legislation which made the recommendation in regard to negative procedure Orders. There is one distinction which has not been made today. One reason why it was passed was that it was not only designed to place a restriction on the length of time for which a Prayer could be discussed. Mr. Speaker Clifton Brown used to allow about two hours for a Prayer. Six Prayers might have been tabled, in which case matters dragged on continually, one Prayer after the other.
By the time our Committee discussed the matter the Government of the day had discovered another way of putting a stop to this, by the simple expedient of moving the Adjournment of the House, an expedient which no genius had thought about during the period in which these debates lasted through the night. In spite of that, our Committee thought that it was desirable to make this recommen-

dation, and the then Conservative Government adopted it. There has never been the slightest complaint about it. It stopped half a dozen Prayers from going down and allowed one Prayer to be decided on one night.
There is no question of half a dozen affirmative Orders going down. If the Government want to bring an affirmative Order before the House, they do it in such a way as to get it carried reasonably. The hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page), who expressed many misapprehensions, may be interested to know that the Select Committee has on several occasions discussed the question of how far the liberty of the Opposition would be restricted. On every occasion we came to the conclusion that, if the Government were unreasonable on any subject such as this, the Opposition had unlimited means for making them pay for it. There is, therefore, no question of dictatorship. If the Government try to put down an affirmative Order and rush it through, they might, perhaps, rush that one through the House, but the Opposition will have plenty of powers in reserve to make sure that they pay a heavy price for so doing. The difficulty as regards suppression of the liberty of the Opposition is, therefore, imaginary. We ought not to exaggerate these things.

Mr. Graham Page: As I understand it, the right hon. Gentleman's argument is that we should have to let an affirmative Order go through under the l½-hours arrangement, the law would be made and it would be all over. But then, he says, we could be spiteful on another occasion just to pay the Government back. That is an extraordinary view.

Mr. Woodburn: The hon. Gentleman knows very well that that is what he is objecting to, that we should remove power from the Opposition to obstruct the Government's business. But that is the weapon which the Opposition have to compel the Government to be reasonable. I am pointing out that the Select Committee discussed this matter and came to the conclusion that there were plenty of reasons for the Government's being reasonable. Otherwise, as he says, the Opposition could be spiteful. That is the way the House of Commons works and has worked. It is the reason for many all-night sittings, as the hon. Gentleman knows. The Opposition's argument here


is putting up Aunt Sallies only to knock them down.

Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth: When we discussed this, we did not proceed on the basis that there would be an easy Guillotine machinery for every Bill. Because we thought that our powers could be used against particular Bills, we thought that no harm would done. But this will not be so now.

Mr. Woodbum: We are discussing affirmative Orders. The Chair is empowered to see that the Government are reasonable. If they are not reasonable, Mr. Speaker has ample powers to allow an extra debate. It is a reflection on the Chair to suggest that Mr. Speaker would not protect minorities in this case. I am certain that both Mr. Speaker now and past Speakers, have always made it their responsibility to protect minorities. Any Speaker would ensure that the Government did not ride roughshod over the Opposition. Therefore, the Government must be reasonable.
The hon. Gentleman said that he could not imagine any mischief arising from what he wants. That is probably right, but one has to bear in mind that affirmative Orders come before the House on superannuation matters, for example. An Order on superannuation for teachers, the police or whoever it may be, has to be agreed by all the parties and it is all fixed according to a pattern. When the Order comes before the House, the House cannot alter it; it must either accept or reject it.
Obviously, there ought to be plenty of time to discuss the principle of such an Order in the shorter time proposed. If not, the Speaker has power to extend the time. But my experience of bringing such an Order before the House is that any number of Members want to make constituency speeches about it. My experience in bringing measures forward on education is that the Government must be very careful because, once something like that comes before the House, one is there almost for the duration. Much the same thing happens on fishing; a large number of Members want to make speeches not on the Order but on fishing. They make the Order a peg on which to hang their observations. This is a misuse of an affirmative Order. In such a case, if the House is being kept going

by what appears to be irrelevant discussion, it is quite right, in my view, to have this limitation of time. In the old days, when an Order was being discussed Mr. Speaker kept hon. Members tightly to it and did not allow them to wander all over the place. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman is exaggerating.
We are told that the Motion is a suppression of liberty. But there are only 365 days in the year and only a certain number of days when the House sits. It can sit for only 24 hours in one day. Somehow or other the Government must fit their Parliamentary business into the time available. The House is becoming busier and busier in dealing with important matters. Many important matters are not discussed here. Delegates from the House go to the Council of Europe and other places, and nobody ever knows what they are doing. [Laughter.] No reports come before the House, and there is no discussion.
There are Select Committees, such as the Select Committee of Public Accounts, and there is the Estimates Committee, but sometimes we have little discussion about the important work they do. Yet we waste time forming a debating society on something that should be dealt with in an hour and a half. From the common-sense point of view, and not from the point of view of obstructing business, we should be reasonable. I am satisfied, as I am sure hon. Members opposite are satisfied, that' the Government will act reasonably in this matter. If we are debating an important affirmative Order I am sure that they will give it the whole day and, if necessary, provide extra time. In addition, we always have the guarantee of Mr. Speaker's presence to safeguard the liberties and opportunity of the Opposition.

9.37 p.m.

Sir Hugh Lucas-Tooth: The operative words of the proposal are:
… Mr. Speaker shall put any questions necessary to dispose of such proceedings not later than half-past eleven of the clock or one and a half hours after the commencement of those proceedings …
I understand that "those proceedings" refers to the following words in Standing Order No. 2:
… proceedings in pursuance of any Act of Parliament …


Where there is a series of Orders, as is almost invariable in these matters, will the Standing Order apply to each one of the series or to them all? I see the Leader of the House nodding, and I take it that that means it will apply separately, so that each can be debated for 1½ hours. If so, the Opposition and the usual channels will be put in something of a difficulty.
Where the Opposition think that it would be unfortunate if the debate came to an end within 1½ hours, or that their constituents might think it unfortunate if they agreed to this, they would not be willing lo adopt the common practice of discussing the Orders together and agreeing to subsequent Orders being taken consequentially. I doubt whether it would be possible to have a Division on subsequent Orders, and that seems to me a very unfortunate state of affairs.
The difficulty may well arise in the very common case where two Orders are in virtually identical terms, and one deals with England and one with Scotland. I am rather surprised that the Scottish Nationalist Member is not present to draw attention to that. It is a real problem. It could be merely a difficulty in practice if the wording is corrected, but as it stands there will be difficulty in working the matter out, and I do not believe that the Government have thought about it. That is another reason for resisting the proposal.

9.39 p.m.

Mr. W. O. J. Robinson: We are not discussing the general question of Parliamentary control over delegated legislation, but whether or not there is justification for the control over an affirmative Order being any different from that over a negative Order. It seems to me that those arguing that it should be different have to establish two things quite clearly. The first is that there is a sufficiently clear distinction in sub-stance in method and working between affirmative and negative Orders to justify any difference in treatment. Secondly, they have to establish that an affirmative Order is of such a character that it needs a greater measure of Parliamentary control which cannot be achieved in the one and a half hours allocated generally to a negative Order.
We all listened to the hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) outlining the

nature generally of affirmative Orders. I am sure he will agree that, apart from convention, there is no statutory or constitutional authority providing any inherent difference between a negative and an affirmative Order, although, as I have said, there is clearly a convention on the subject. But I am sure he will also agree that whether or not an Order is subject to the negative or affirmative procedure is a matter for the Statute in question which introduces these Orders and that, to that extent, it is the decision of the sponsoring Minister whether or not he provides in his Bill that Orders shall be negative or affirmative.
I accept that the House will decide in the ultimate whether that is so or not, but, in practice, I would have thought that, if a Bill contained provisions for negative or affirmative procedure, that would be accepted generally by the House. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, with his vast experience, will accept that there is a considerable amount of inconsistency between the types of form used.
I wonder whether I should be in order in referring to the book "Law and Orders", by Sir Carleton Allen, an authority on this subject. It is the 1965 edition. It says:
 In the choice of the form of control (or the choice between control and no control-) when an enabling statute is being drafted there is no consistent principle ….
The variations between affirmative and negative procedure have caused much bewilderment. So experienced a Parliamentarian as the former Leader of the House, the late Lord Crookshank, has said that it is a ' complete fluke' whether the one or the other method is adopted. The late Sir Herbert Williams, who in 1953 claimed to have read every Statutory Instrument during the previous ten years"—
I admire his ability to do so—
 gave it as his opinion that there is ' no inherent principle at all'.
So it is a matter of fluke and no inherent principle whether or not an Order is a negative or an affirmative one.
Sir Carleton also writes:
The Select Committee on Statutory Instruments has several times called attention to the unsystematic use of the affirmative and negative procedures and has pointed out that the two may even be found, for no apparent reason, cheek by jowl in the same Instrument.


With that degree of inconsistency, can it seriously be argued that any hardship will be occasioned by the two forms of Order being subject to the same time limit?
The second question is whether there is any practical effect of the limitation of discussion on the lines suggested. Presumably, it is said that more Parliamentary attention is devoted to affirmative Orders because of their particular importance. That may be so of certain affirmative instruments, but as has been pointed out, you, Mr. Speaker, will decide whether or not an Order has had sufficient discussion. There is thus protection for any hon. Member who wishes to discuss it not to be cut out because of the limitation of time.
But I wonder whether it is true that affirmative Orders attract the same amount of attention as suggested? Sir Carleton Allen writes:
 Affirmative resolutions frequently come on in the evening, and often late at night, and unless they raise contentious issues—which most of them do not—they do not command great attention.
From my limited experience of the House I would say that that is the situation. The question is, therefore, whether any hardship would be caused and whether there would be any danger of steamrollering if an hour and a half were devoted to the normal affirmative Order. As I have said, there would be adequate protection to enable the debate to be continued if it were important. But why is it more important and why is more time needed for an affirmative than for a negative procedure Order? I would have thought that the arguments for or against an Order could be fully canvassed within an hour and a half.
I am a very new Member of the House and perhaps still have the naïvety which comes with newness, but I cannot see that an argument becomes any more cogent for being repeated, which is an experience often to be found in debates on these Orders. It is said that there may be constituency problems to be raised and that the pressure of argument against an affirmative procedure Order may lead the Government to change their minds. In those circumstances, when all the arguments have been canvassed as they could succinctly be in an

hour and a half, if hon. Members wanted to join in they could simply say, "I support the objections to the Order and subscribe to all the arguments against it", and no more. [Laughter.] That laughter shows my naïvety, but the adoption of such a suggestion would be no bad thing on occasion.

9.46 p.m.

Mr. M. Stewart: By leave of the House, the suggestion at the end of the suggestion of the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, East (Mr. W. O. J. Robinson) was most interesting and would be most salutary if adopted, and I do not see the smallest chance of hon. Members adopting it.
I confirm the assurance already signalled to the hon. Member for Hendon, South (Sir H. Lucas-Tooth), that if under this procedure the House were to debate a series of affirmative procedure Orders, the debate could last for one and a half hours on each. He advanced that as an argument against the proposed change, but I am sure that if the answer to his question had been the other way round he would have regarded that as an even greater objection. Clearly, it would be entirely arbitrary and improper for the Government to put down half a dozen affirmative procedure Orders on the same night and be allowed to get the whole lot through in an hour and a half.
We can rule out that idea altogether. If the Government put down half a dozen Orders to be debated on one night so closely related that it was the sensible thing to do, then the first would be debated in one and a half hours or less and, if the subject matter were that closely related, it would be clear that hon. Members would not then wish to spend one and a half hours on each successive Order and that business would go through with reasonable expedition.
It might be asked what would happen if the Government were not sensible, or if the Opposition were unreasonable. That happens from time to time and then time is wasted and tempers are frayed and there are unnecessary all-night sittings. I know of no arrangement of the Standing Orders which will prevent that from happening on some occasions. The business of the Standing Orders is to see that such occasions are minimized
Let us consider how this procedure would work in practice. The hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Graham Page) gave us a picture of four speeches by Front Benchers. He knows very well that when negative procedure Orders are debated under the one and a half hour's rule we do not have two Front Benchers from each side and that by common practice Front Benchers try to moderate their speeches, knowing that back benchers particularly like to get in on debates of this kind. It is reasonable to assume that what happens on those occasions will happen with debates on affirmative procedure Orders under the new procedure.
There was then the suspicion that this procedure would be used for Orders which ought to be given a whole day, that the Government might try that on, either as a deliberate try-on or through an error of judgment. They would not try it on more than once, because as my right hon. Friend the Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) has pointed out, there is government in opposition by revenge, and this remark has a good deal of soundness in it. We all know that it is perfectly true, if Governments actually try it on, and it is apparent that they have tried it on, they may be able to get away with it on that one occasion but they are made to regret it afterwards.
This is not something that ought to happen often, but the fact that it can happen is a powerful check on unreasonable action by Governments. I do not believe that in practice one would have Governments doing this as a deliberate "try-on". It is conceivable that they could by error of judgment try to get in an hour and a half something which really ought, if they had judged it better, to have had a whole day. It is exactly on that occasion that Mr. Speaker's discretion will make it clear to the Government that they have made an error of judgment. In this connection I assure the: hon. Gentleman and the House that there will be no question of the kind of Orders required when a State of Emergency is proclaimed being put through under this procedure. It would be recognised that they required a full debate.
The other question asked was: is this really necessary? My right hon. Friend the Member for East Stirlingshire answered this very powerfully when he pointed out the nature of some of the

affirmative Orders which have been made affirmative Orders because they affect the interests of parties and organised groups outside the House to whom the Government have given some kind of pledge.
Basically, what is wanted is a reasonable-sized debate on the basic principles of the Order. Very often this could be done quite sensibly and adequately in an hour and a half, but, in the absence of a rule this, might quite easily drag on for twice or thrice that length because many of us, I am afraid, are not prepared to adopt the suggestion made of saying "I thoroughly agree with the hon. Member who has expressed the argument better than I could "and then sitting down. I am afraid that hon. Members very rarely behave like that.
Speaking from my own experience of the House, it is true—and I have been as guilty as any of this—that we occasionally waste time, partly for the pure pleasure of annoying the Government or annoying hon. Members opposite, whichever side we may be on, partly because of the feeling that, although the subject has been fully discussed, the vital points have not yet been expressed with that complete clarity that only oneself can add to the argument.
This is sometimes what prolongs debates. It does not really add to the protection of liberty in the country to have this kind of thing. It is an unnecessary consumption of time which, as has been pointed out, the House needs for discussion of a large number of important and interesting subjects for which we do not at present find time.
I wish to refer to the degree of discretion given to you, Mr. Speaker, by this Order. Has it occurred to hon. Members opposite that we give to Mr. Speaker the discretion to decide whenever the Closure should be moved? If it were not for this discretion an unscrupulous Government could push their business through at lightening speed, moving the Closure quarter of an hour after the debate began. We have recognised that the safeguard of Mr. Speaker's judgment when there has been adequate debate is of permanent value in preventing an abuse of the Closure by Governments. Mr. Speaker's discretion is a tried and trusted instrument that it is proper to


use on this occasion, and I commend this proposal to the House.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: To start this new idea going, I thoroughly approve of all

the arguments used on this side of the House and suggest that we now vote.

Question put:—

The House divided: Ayes 216, Noes 133.

Division No. 19.]
AYES
[9.54 p.m.


Albu, Austen
Gardner, Tony
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Garrett, W. E.
Moyle, Roland


Alldritt, Walter
Gregory, Arnold
Murray, Albert


Anderson, Donald
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Neal, Harold


Archer, Peter
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Newens, Stan


Armstrong, Ernest
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Norwood, Christopher


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Hamling, William
Oakes, Gordon


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Hannan, William
Ogden, Erie


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Harper, Joseph
O'Malley, Brian


Barnes, Michael
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Oram, Albert E.


Barnett, Joel
Haseldine, Norman
Orbach, Maurice


Baxter, William
Hazell, Bert
Orme, Stanley


Beaney, Alan
Heffer, Eric S.
Oswald, Thomas


Bellenger, Rt. Hn. F. J.
Henig, Stanley
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Bence, Cyril
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Bidwell, Sydney
Hilton, W. S.
Paget, R. T.


Binns, John
Hooley, Frank
Palmer, Arthur


Bishop, E. S. 
Horner, John
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


 Blackburn, F.
Houghton, Rt. Hn, Douglas
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Boardman, H.
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Pavitt, Laurence


Booth, Albert
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Boston, Terence
Howie, W.
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Boyden, James
Hoy, James
Pentland, Norman


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Huckfield, Leslie
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Brooks, Edwin
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Price, William (Rugby)


Brown, Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Hunter, Adam
Probert, Arthur


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Randall, Harry


Buchan, Norman
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Rankin, John


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'bum)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Rees, Merlyn


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Cant, R. B.
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Carmichael, Neil
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Judd, Frank
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)


Coe, Denis
Kelley, Richard
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)


Coleman, Donald
Kenyon, Clifford
Rose, Paul


Concannon, J. D.
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Coplan, Bernard
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Ryan, John


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Rlchard
Leadbitter, Ted
Shaw, Arnold (llford, S.)


Cuflen, Mrs. Alice
Ledger, Ron
Sheldon, Robert


Dalyell, Tam
Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward(N V tie-u-Tyne)


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Lee, John (Reading)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Davidson, James(Aberdeenshire,W.)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Davies, C. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Lomas, Kenneth
Slater, Joseph


Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Loughlin, Charles
Small, William


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Spriggs, Leslie


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Dell, Edmund
McBride, Neil
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael


Dempsey, James
McCann, John
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Dewar, Donald
Macdonald, A. H.
Swain, Thomas


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
McGuire, Michael
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


Dobson, Ray
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Tinn, James


Doig, Peter
Mackintosh, John P.
Urwin, T. W.


Dunn, James A.
Maclennan, Robert
Varley, Eric G.


Dunnett, Jack
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Watkins, David (Consett)


Eadie, Alex
MacPherson, Malcolm
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Edwards, Rt. Hn. Ness (Caerphilly)
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Weitzman, David


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Wellbeloved, James


Ellis, John
Mallalieu, J.P.W.(Huddersfield,E.)
White, Mrs. Eirene


Ensor, David
Mapp, Charles
Whitlock, William


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Marks, Kenneth
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Fernyhough, E.
Mason, Roy
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Finch, Harold
Mendelson, J. J.
Winnick, David


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mikardo, Ian
Winterbottom, R. E.


Foot, Sir Dingle (Ipswich)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Foot. Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Yates, Victor


Forrester, John
Molloy, William



Fraser, John (Norwood)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Galpern, Sir Myer
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Mr. Ioan L. Evans and Mr. Alan Fitch.




NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Glyn, Sir Richard
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Actor, John
Goodhew, Victor
Neave, Airey


Attins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Gower, Raymond
Nott, John


Awdry, Daniel
Grant, Anthony
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Baker, W. H. K.
Gresham Cooke, R.
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. &amp; Fhm)
Grieve, Percy
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Bessell, Peter
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Biffen, John
Gurden, Harold
Pardoe, John


Biggs-Davison, John
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Pink, R. Bonner


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Black, Sir Cyril
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Prior, J. M. L.


Bilker, Peter
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Pym, Francis


Boardman, Tom
Heseltine, Michael
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Hiley, Joseph
Royle, Anthony


Bromley-Davenport,Lt. -Col- SirWalter
Holland, Philip
Sharpies, Richard


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hooson, Emlyn
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus, N&amp;M)
Hordern, Peter
Silvester, Frederick


Bullus, Sir Eric
Hornby, Richard
Smith, John


Burden, F. A.
Hunt, John
Stainton, Keith


Campbell, Cordon
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Carlisle, Mark
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)


Chicheeter-Clark, R.
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Summers, Sir Spencer


Clegg, Walter
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Cooke, Robert
Jopling, Michael
Temple, John M.


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Ka berry, Sir Donald
Thatcher, Mrs. Margaret


Cordle, John
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Tilney, John


Costain, A. P.
Kitson, Timothy
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Lancaster, Cot. C. G.
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Sir Oliver
Lane, David
Vickers, Dame Joan


Crouch, David
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Walters, Dennis


Dance, James
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
Webster, David


Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Loveys, W. H.
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Doughty, Charles
Lubbock, Eric
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Drayson, G. B.
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Mac Arthur, Ian
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
McMaster, Stanley
Woodnutt, Mark


Emery, Peter
Maddan, Martin
Worsley, Marcus


Errington, Sir Eric
Mawby, Ray
Wright, Esmond


Eyre, Reginald
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Wylie, N. R.


Farr, John
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Younger, Hn. George


Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Monro, Hector



Fortescue, Tim
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Gibson-Watt, David
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Mr. R. W. Elliott and Mr. Jasper More.


Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh



Glover, Sir Douglas
Murton, Oscar

Resolved,

That Standing Order No. 2 (Exempted business) be amended as follows: —

Line 17, leave out from 'provides' to end of line 22 and insert ' but Mr. Speaker shall put any questions necessary to dispose of such proceedings not later than half-past eleven of the clock or one and a half hours after the commencement of those proceedings, whichever is the later:

Provided that, if Mr. Speaker shall be of opinion that, because of the importance of the subject matter of the motion, the time for debate has not been adequate, he shall, instead of putting the question as aforesaid, interrupt the business, and the debate shall stand adjourned till the next sitting (other than a Friday);

(c) proceedings in pursuance of any Standing Order of this House which provides that proceedings though opposed may be decided after the expiration of the time for opposed business;'.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,

That the Proceedings on the Motions relating to Standing Order No. 30 (Counting), Standing Order No. 56 (Lords Amendments) and Notices of Motions (Private Members) may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed. —[Mr. Crossman.]

PROCEDURE

Standing Order No. 30 (Counting)

10.5 p.m.

Mr. Crossman: I beg to move,
that Standing Order No. 30 (Counting) be amended as follows: —
Line 4, after "clock", insert "or after ten of the clock".
Line 6, after "clock", insert "or after ten of the clock ".
I am sure that I shall have the active support of the Opposition in what is really a very reasonable proposal. Even in a postprandial mood, I hope that the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Sir D. Glover) will begin to see reason.
We are asking for a Standing Order saying that there shall be no Count after 10 o'clock. This is no great departure from precedent, because we have already laid down that there should be no Counts between 7.30 and 8.30 p.m. and on Fridays between 1.15 and 2.15. Although we have laid down these negatives about ordinary days of the week, we have not laid down when Counts should take place, and I gather that my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Blackburn) will improve on the situation by moving an Amendment which I would wholeheartedly advocate to the House, part of it being designed to bring us into order, and part of it to remind us of misfortunes which should not occur again in the lives of a Leader of the House and a Patronage Secretary. However, that is ancient history.
Let me remind the House of how limited in recent years the effect of the Count has been. I have had some statistics prepared, and they show that, from 1955 to 1959, the House was counted out on 11 occasions, 10 of which occurred on private Members' Fridays. In other words, on 10 out of 11 occasions, the Count, as it often is, was directed not against the Government of the day, but against a private Member. It is the private Member who suffers, whether the Count is called on a private Members' Friday or on the Consolidated Fund Bill.
To take a more recent period, during the last five years we have had no successful Counts before 10 p.m. other than on Fridays. There have been only four

after 10 p.m., of which two have been on Government business.
I am not a radical reformer, and I am not suggesting that the House should dispense with Counts entirely. I suggest merely, as a modest advance in our reform, that we should dispense with them after 10 p.m. We shall keep Divisions, and a Division is a very effective Count. I suggest that we should count ourselves by dividing and not by surreptitious practice.

Mr. Speaker: I should be grateful if the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Blackburn) would move his Amendment.

Mr. Blackburn: I beg to move, at the end add:
 Line 14, at end add:
(3) The House shall not be counted during the proceedings on any Consolidated Fund Bill or Appropriation Bill, or during proceedings in the course of which Mr. Speaker is directed to put forthwith any question.
(4) If at any time after four of the clock on the House being counted it shall appear that 40 Members are not present, the business under consideration shall stand over until the next sitting of the House, and the House shall stand adjourned.
I hope that my modest Amendment will not meet with much opposition, though I may be being unduly optimistic.
I would remind right hon. and hon. Members opposite, as I did last week, that there is a possibility that at some time in the far distant future they may once again form the Government, and my Amendment would be of great help to the Government of the day, whoever they might be. Both Opposition and Government agree that, in the case of the Consolidated Fund Bill and the Appropriation Bill, no Opposition would want to prevent a Government from gaining their objectives. In any case, since they are generally taken formally, any Count occurring during the debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill is merely robbing private Members of their time.
I do not think that it is likely that there will ever be a Count again on the Consolidated Fund Bill. I notice that the hon. Member who perpetrated the atrocity last Session is present, and he is probably sorry now for what he did. It is not likely to occur again, but, just to make doubly sure, I have included


a provision to that effect in my Amendment.
It looks rather queer, because it says:
 Line 3, at end add—
 Line 14, at end add—
The first refers to my right hon. Friend's Motion, and the second refers to Standing Order No. 30.
Paragraph (4) attempts to make clear what happens when there is a count. The only provision about what happens to the business is at present in Standing Order No. 30, which says:
The House shall not be counted on Mondays, Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays between half-past seven and half-past eight of the clock, but if on a division taken on any business between half-past seven and half-past eight of the clock it appears that forty Members are not present, the business shall stand over until the next sitting of the House…
I believe from that that, whenever there is a Count, it is intended not that the business should be lost, but that the business should stand over until the next sitting. There was a little confusion last Session about that. I think, Mr. Speaker, you will agree that was why you gave advice and not a ruling on what took place then.
Subsection 4 attempts to make clear that, though the House would be adjourned if 40 Members were not present, as in Standing Order No. 30 where a Division takes place between 7.30 and 8.30, so, on every other occasion, the business is not lost, but stands over until the next sitting of the House.

10.13 p.m.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: It seems curious that neither the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House nor the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Blackburn), in moving to reduce the circumstances in which Counts could be called, bothered to indicate the purpose that lies behind the provision for having a Count. The purpose is to make sure that there is a quorum. The purpose of a quorum—it may be that this is elementary—is to make sure that the business of this House is not transacted without, at any rate, a modest number of Members being present. Rules about a quorum are not peculiar to this House. Local authorities and other bodies have rules that they cannot proceed to take a decision or even discuss a matter unless there is a quorum present.
The right hon. Gentleman's proposal could involve a curious paradox. I understand that he does not propose to affect the provisions about a quorum in Select or Standing Committees. Yet his proposal involves this House proceeding with business though there are present fewer Members than would enable one of its own Select or Standing Committees to proceed. This is an indication that the right hon. Gentleman's proposal, for all the agreeable light-heartedness with which it was presented, raises a serious question: Should the House of Commons proceed with public business when there are fewer than 40 Members present or available?
Our quorum, for a House of 630 Members, is not a very high one, fortunately. If there is so little interest in a particular item of business that fewer than 40 Members will be either within two minutes call or in the Chamber, it is very doubtful whether the House should proceed at all with that business.

Mr. Blackburn: In the case of the Consolidated Fund Bill, surely the right hon. Gentleman would agree that it is only towards the end of the proceedings that there is likely to be less than a quorum, and, therefore, in the case of this Bill, and also the Appropriation Bills, the conditions may be different from those on other occasions?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I am coming to the hon. Gentleman's Amendment. I would like, first, to deal with the main proposition before the House.
If there is sufficient force in the point of view which I have put, that we, like other bodies, should not proceed with our business before 10 p.m. in the absence of even quite a small proportion of our Members, why does that force lapse after 10 o'clock? There is often no change in the seriousness of the business being considered. We are at the moment, at 10.15, dealing with proposals which I believe are of the greatest gravity for the future effectiveness and strength of the House of Commons.
We could be taking the Finance Bill after 10 p.m. This is a Measure of the greatest importance. If, by leaving the present rule, rightly in my view, in operation before 10 o'clock, the right hon. Gentleman thereby accepts the principle


that it is wrong, as well as indecorous, for the House to proceed on the basis that fewer than 40 Members should be here, why in heaven's name does all this change after 10 p.m.? I think that the right hon. Gentleman owes the House an answer to this. If one accepts, as I do, the desirability of at least a modest quorum in the House at one hour, why not later?
The right hon. Gentleman said that under Standing Order 30 there is an exception to the quorum rule between 7.30 and 8.30 on the first four days of the week, and between 1.15 and 2.15 on Fridays. This is based purely on practical convenience. These are, on the whole, the times when hon. Members take such modest refreshment as the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Maxwell) now permits, at the prices which he in his profound wisdom lays down. It would be foolish to bring them running here at the double, with their soup half-absorbed, during those hours. The right hon. Gentleman tried to give some weight to it, but this exception does not tend to support the general proposition for the removal after 10 p.m. of the quorum provisions.
This proposal is made worse by a provision which the House accepted earlier, the one under which sittings which go on after 10 o'clock at night can continue at 10 o'clock in the morning, for, as I understand it, the exemption from Counts, and therefore from the quorum, will apply to morning sittings. What justification is there for continuing the business of the United Kingdom with fewer than 40 Members present at midday, but not at 3 p.m. or 4 p.m.? Will the right hon. Gentleman say why?

Mr. Crossman: The sitting in the morning will be a continuation of a suspended sitting of the evening before. We would have the same rules for one as for the other. That is all.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: It will almost certainly be a continuation of Government business begun at 3.30, and subject to the quorum. This is why it arises. Therefore, taking his own point, it will be identical business, performed in this case in the middle of the morning, in-

stead of the middle of the afternoon, but subject to quite different rules.
This kind of idea reflects rather curiously the right hon. Gentleman's great emphasis on full-time Members, whoever they may be. Apparently they do not need to be full-time in the morning, and not after 10 o'clock at night. The only time the full-time Member comes into his own is between 2.30 and 10. This is the right hon. Gentleman's curious proposition.
The right hon. Gentleman, finally, made the curious argument that the Count had been of limited effect in recent years because, except on Fridays, the House had not very often been counted out. Surely this is very naive. The fact of the possibility of a Count causes the Patronage Secretary to keep his troops here and all that the right hon. Gentleman's proposition proves is that successive Patronage Secretaries have been efficient. This is certainly so of my right hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Mr. Whitelaw). The Government Patronage Secretary is still, perhaps, sub judice.
The proposition of the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde, by extending the scope of this proposal, makes it worse. After all, whatever may be the conventions about the raising of individual subjects on either the Consolidated Fund Bills or the Appropriations Bills, what the House is doing at the time is voting the issue out of the Consolidated Fund or appropriating immense sums of public money. I have seen—or would have seen, had I not been out of order in seeing—people in the Gallery noticing with some surprise the voting of these vast sums without any apparent notice being taken.
It is a serious moment in Parliamentary history when we vote these thousands of millions of pounds of the taxpayers' money, and the hon. Member's suggestion in his Amendment is that this might be done with perhaps half a dozen Members present, because a Division is not likely, and, therefore, we lack of the safeguard which the Lord President of the Council mentioned—that a Division discloses the nakedness of the land and brings the proceedings to a close when there are not 40 Members present. This means that these immensely important


Measures could be taken through without 40 of 630 Members being present. I can think of nothing more damaging to the standing of the House.
That also applies to the Lord President of the Council's main proposition. There are 630 of us. Is it really what the right hon. Gentleman wants to go out from this House that public business should in future be transacted with fewer than 40 Members out of 630 on the premises, and this from the right hon. Gentleman who has sometimes twitted us with being less zealous than we should be in our Parliamentary duties? I hope that the House will reject both the proposal and the Amendment.

10.23 p.m.

Mr. Woodburn: The right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) is under some misapprehension about how the House of Commons works. The Government are the Queen's Government and the business of the House of Commons and of every hon. Member is to try to keep control of the Government. On certain occasions, the right hon. Member must have the opportunity to state his grievances against the Government. On these occasions, such as the Consolidated Fund Bill, it does not matter if he is the only Member on the bench; he still has a right to state his grievance to the Government.
The right hon. Gentleman must know that, in some Adjournment debates, with only one Opposition or Government Member stating his case to the Government, that Member may state as powerful a case without a single other Member being present. The case which he puts may change all the affairs of his constituency and sometimes go far beyond it. Even one hon. Member has the right to state his case to the Government.
I have a terrible memory of a Count. During the war, officers were permitted to return from the trenches and the front lice to the House during Army debates to state their case. During these debates the House sat all night and Members, sometimes covered with mud, sat on these benches waiting to make their speeches. One night an hon. Member who I can only describe as malevolent— he did not take part in the war and did not agree with it—made a speech

lasting for 40 minutes. Then, having taken up that amount of time, about a quarter of an hour after resuming his seat he called a Count, which meant that men who had travelled hundreds of miles to be here to make speeches were unable to do so and had to go home. A. P. Herbert, who used to be an hon. Member, actually used physical violence against that man, but it would be improper for me to repeat even a few of the words uttered by A. P. Herbert to him in the Lobby on that occasion.
Hon Gentlemen opposite seem amused at this story. It was a terrible occurrence. Men who had been risking their lives came here from the trenches to state their grievances. I refer to men who had been giving great service to their country. They were counted out as a result of the efforts of a man who was doing no service for his country. It was a disgrace. While that was an exceptional case, it shows what can happen. When discussing the Consolidated Fund Bill it is possible for an hon. Member who wants to go home to count the House out and deprive other hon. Members of their elementary right of stating their grievances before the Government.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: Of course, the right hon. Gentleman is right, but he will recall that, as the Government must get the Consolidated Fund Bill, in such a situation they would have to put the Bill down for debate on another night and secure a quorum, whereupon an opportunity would be provided for any hon. Member to raise his constituency or other grievances. In other words, the Consolidated Fund Bill would not be lost. If it were, the Government would also be lost.

Mr. Woodburn: Until recent years no hon. Member called a Count on the Consolidated Fund Bill. Hon. Members were allowed to continue debating their various grievances until all had delivered their speeches. Only in recent years has the House been subjected to this breach of convention when discussing the Consolidated Fund Bill.
I hope that hon. Gentlemen opposite will not oppose this proposal because, if they do, they will be depriving hon. Members of their elementary right to state their case before the Government


at any hour, without the fear of the House being counted out.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Hooley.

Hon. Members: Oh.

Mr. Speaker: Order. My attention was distracted. I called in the wrong order. The matter will be put right shortly. Mr. Hooley.

10.24 p.m.

Mr. Frank Hooley: My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House knows that I strongly support him in his attempt to reform our procedure. However, I suggest that this proposition is an error. I am bound to agree in substance with the arguments of the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter). I agree with him that it is wrong in principle that the House should not have a quorum.
A body of this kind should have a quorum, however small. Be it 40 hon. Members or a lesser number, it would be wrong for us to transact the business of the nation without there being in our rules of procedure some provision for a quorum of hon. Members to be available. I understand that, if we approve this proposal, a quorum will not be necessary.
I do not consider it to be of any value to quote what has happened in the past or to conclude that past events are a guide for what could happen in the future. If this change is made, a different situation will be created and I fear that it may be exploited by a group of hon. Members for their own purposes. A group of 15 or 20 hon. Members could continue the proceedings of the House virtually indefinitely simply on the ground that there was no provision for counting them out.
We have a system for closuring a debate, but, in essence, the Count is different because, if a minimum number of hon. Members is not present, it is possible to put an end to the proceedings. By definition, at that time one has lost his opportunity to move the Closure which, I understand, requires 100 hon. Members to be present and vote. I am open to correction on that, but I think I am right. More experienced hon. Members than I appear to agree.
It is wrong in principle for the House not to have a quorum. The Leader of the House will find that he has left our procedures open to abuse if we have no minimum number as a quorum in our rules of procedure.

10.30 p.m.

Sir Arthur Vere Harvey: I support the case put forward by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter). The Leader of the House, who has been in this House for many years, dealt with this matter in a nonchalent manner. He knows that if there is a meeting of an organisation such as I.C.I., or a small parish council, there has to be a quorum.
A fortnight ago the hon. Member for Wandsworth, Central (Dr. David Kerr) was seeming to advocate an increase in pay for services rendered in the House, but it seems that the Leader of the House is trying to get hon. Members to leave for home at 10 o'clock on the dot. I can understand that with all his troubles he wishes to appease his hon. Friends. I recall that four years ago the present Financial Secretary to the Treasury spoke in a debate on the White Fish Industry Bill for more than two hours, although I do not think he had even read the Bill. It was a brilliant performance, but now that hon. Members opposite are in power they look differently on these things. It may be sooner than the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Blackburn) thinks when the Tories will be the Government again.
The Leader of the House cannot get away with this after a few words. He is riding roughshod over the feelings of the House. I notice that half the time he is asleep on the Front Bench. He cannot keep awake for five minutes at a time, yet he tries to tell his followers that they can go home at 10 o'clock. Is it too much to ask that out of 630 hon. Members 40 should be present to conduct the business of the United Kingdom? I do not think so. I hope that my hon. Friends will vote against this proposal.

10.33 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: Some times when I have spare time, and am not here in the middle of the night, I read biographies of people who have been on the Government Front


Bench. Usually, they say that they reached their ambition and counted themselves fortunate to become Leader of the House or Minister of Defence, but some became Prime Minister and a short time afterwards everyone considered them a failure.
I am an ordinary humble back bencher. When, last year, I called a Count in the debate on the Consolidated Fund Bill, it was not part of a plot to affect the rights of back benchers. My idea was simply to embarrass the Government. In trying to understand why the right hon. Gentleman should bother at all about this matter, I thought at first that it might be due to pique. I understand that he might feel pique at that moment, and that he was very cross when it happened, but I am sure he would not propose this Amendment to Standing Orders after this period of time out of pique.
There must be some other reason. I think it is that he believes that it would be an advantage to the Government not to have to keep their back benchers here after 10 o'clock at night. Any Government should be able to keep a quorum. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) argued that the quorum might be reduced, but he did not say that it should be done away with altogether. Plainly, 40 is a small quorum out of 630 Members.
In my view, even on the Consolidated Fund Bill, which is a Government Measure although it involves private Members so largely, and on the Appropriation Bill, 40 would be a reasonable number for any Government to keep in the precincts or in the Chamber. With the number of Ministers they now have, vastly greater than we had, the Government could provide 40 Members. Certainly, they could do it with Ministers and P.P.S.s. Moreover, there are always two or three on this side present even in the middle of the night or at 4 or 5 o'clock in the morning.
I cannot understand why the right hon. Gentleman should assume that his proposal would be generally acceptable. We believe that democracy should work here on the basis of at least a sufficient number of Members taking an interest in the proceedings of the House, at whatever time it may be. If it is right that we should sometimes sit through the

night, it is right also that at least 40 Members should be here. The right hon. Gentleman should withdraw his Motion.

10.36 p.m.

Mr. Ray Mawby: The Leader of the House suggests that, because we have a continuation of what was the Speaker's "chop", a period for dinner between 7.30 and 8.30, the House ought now to accept that a Count should not be called after 10 o'clock. But he omitted to add the point that my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) made, that the House could now be adjourned till 10 o'clock the following morning and the barring of a Count would carry on not only after 10 o'clock at night, but from 10 o'clock in the morning, too.
In Standing Committees, we accept that the rule requiring a quorum must prevail. If the number of Members present falls below the quorum, automatically the Chairman suspends the sitting. Yet the right hon. Gentleman now proposes that, even if the quorum in this Chamber or the whole of the precincts falls below only 40 out of 630 Members, no one shall have an opportunity to draw that circumstance to the attention of the Chair.
Whether it be after 10 o'clock at night or, if the business has been adjourned, after 10 o'clock in the morning, there ought to be opportunity for any hon. Member to draw to the attention of the Chair that there are fewer than 40 Members present. If we do not accept that, we should seriously consider changing the Standing Order for Standing Committees. The percentage of Members required to be present in Standing Committee is much higher than the 40 required to be present in the Chamber.
I am attracted by the Amendment. Discussions on the Consolidated Fund Bill give hon. Members an opportunity to raise matters that may concern their constituency and no other, and, therefore, I would support the Amendment if it were taken on its own.
But I am completely against the Motion. When the House is making decisions in its solemn majesty—[Laughter.] This is an important matter. It has been said that the only thing the House


cannot do is to change a man into a woman. It has tremendous power. If we are sitting in our solemn majesty it is not asking too much that at least 40 of us should be in the precincts to ensure that we make decisions correctly.

10.42 p.m.

Mr. Peter Bessell: We have listened tonight to a number of right hon. and hon. Members with very wide experience of the House. They have a great deal more knowledge of its procedure than I, and as a relatively new Member I have hesitated to speak.
The argument advanced by the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter), and those who supported him, must be taken seriously. I was surprised, as he was, that the Leader of the House could introduce a proposal of this sort with such nochalance, apparently not regarding it as a matter of serious importance. Yet the Leader of the House has repeatedly expressed his wish to see the House become a more effective legislative body. He has said and written that he wants to see Members taking a much fuller part not merely in debate, but in the control of the nation's affairs.
What is suggested tonight is that we can continue the business of the House after 10 o'clock at night if there are as few as two hon. Members present, one speaking for the Opposition and one of the Government. While that is happening and all the other 628 hon. Members are at home in their beds, all the servants of the House and the police are required to be on duty, and presumably the restaurant facilities must be available for those two hon. Members. We shall present a spectacle to the public which would be regarded as shameful. We have all too often been criticised for the small numbers of hon. Members who are present in the House during important debates.
Now we are being asked to say that it is no longer important if, for example, when we are discussing the Report stage of the Finance Bill, there should be fewer than 40 Members present. That could happen. If no hon. Member is allowed to call a Count after 10 p.m. it would be possible to prolong a debate on a Clause or Amendment to the Finance

Bill indefinitely and it would surely be wrong to have a situation in which the nation's business was conducted by fewer than 40 Members.
Like the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby), I have great sympathy with the Amendment because there is a case for preventing a Count taking place on the Consolidated Fund Bill's Second Reading, when there is an opportunity to raise constituency matters which does not normally come easily.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: This is a point which the right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) did not fully understand. If the Consolidated Fund Bill is counted out the Government are bound, in order to get the money, to restore it and, therefore, to give the hon. Members the same opportunities they would have had, if there had not been a Count, to argue their case. A Count on the Consolidated Fund Bill may embarrass the Government, but does not diminish the rights of private Members.

Mr. Bessell: I accept the point and I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames.
The right hon. Member for East Stirlingshire (Mr. Woodburn) made a moving speech in which he quoted an experience from, I presume, the Second World War, although as he referred to the trenches I wondered whether he was referring to the First World War. But surely that experience did not reflect so much on the hon. Member who called the Count, but on the fact there were fewer than 40 Members present. The hon. Members who travelled a long distance under difficult conditions to give their speeches were denied that right because of the absence of a quorum.
A quorum is, in all matters of business conduct, recognised as of vital importance. No major company will conduct business at board level without a quorum. It would be prevented from doing so by company law. Yet we are asked to say that we are prepared to conduct our business with fewer than 40 Members present in the Chamber, with fewer than 40 Members being present even in the precincts of the House. This proposal should be opposed. The Leader of the House has made a grave error of judgment in introducing it and I hope that we shall firmly reject it.

10.43 p.m.

Mr. Crossman: Perhaps, by leave of the House, I may speak again on this matter, because apparently a number of hon. Members feel that we would be harming the legislative effectiveness of the House if we were to limit Counts in this way. If I thought that, I would not propose it.
However, I would say to the hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell), who painted such a terrible picture of what would happen if I had my way, that we get a situation every night in which only two Members are here in the Chamber while the officials of the House are still on duty. It is an extremely important part of our proceedings which could be ended any night by someone calling a Count. I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman's description of how ridiculous it is for just two Members— a Minister and a private Member—to be here. There are times when the House is full, in a sense, in that an hon. Member is putting a constituency case and the Minister is waiting to reply to it, everyone else having gone home to bed. Those two being there does not seem to me to be a caricature of Parliamentary practice. That half an hour is a valuable half an hour. We have to remember that the operation of the Count has enabled hon. Members to deny to individual hon. Members at any time anywhere near that half an hour.

Mr. Bessell: Mr. Bessellrose

Mr. Crossman: I am trying to reply to the hon. Gentleman, and he might listen. He made a lengthy attack and said that we were utterly wrong. At lease he should listen to my reply.
I now come to the second suggestion, which was that I had proposed that we should abolish the quorum of the House. That is not true. The House makes its effective legislative act in decision, as the hon. Member for Totnes (Mr. Mawby) said, and when we decide, we vote. The method of decision is the vote or Division. I have made it perfectly clear that throughout the period when we propose not to have Counts there can be Divisions. At any point we can test whether there is a quorum by the effective way of finding whether there are sufficient to vote, because if there are not sufficient

hon. Members to vote the business would fall, and this could occur throughout the period when we suggest that we might dispense with the Count.
The right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) is always a reasonable man about the things which suit him, and he said that it was obviously practical not to have a Count during lunch time on Fridays and in the evenings during the dinner hour. But if it is practical not to have a Count then, why should there be anything sacred and not practical about having a Count at other times, provided that we retain the basic right, which is the right of the House to come to a decision? Each time we come to a decision, we need a quorum. It seems to be a self-evident fact that we must require a quorum in order to come to a decision.
The other issue is whether we should permit an individual to insist on a quorum at all times when there is not a decision of the House, when there is discussion, possibly discussion of some small, limited issue between a back bencher and a Minister. Is it proper that that discussion should be ended simply because there are not 40 Members present? When the House is deciding something, then we should insist on the quorum. Either side would be able to force a Division at any time throughout the night and a Division would prove the number of hon. Members present.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The right hon. Gentleman is referring to the House making a decision, but does not the House sometimes make a decision without a Division, accepting a proposal without putting it to the vote? The right hon. Gentleman might say that such a proposal would be uncontroversial or there would be a Division, but the point is whether the House should come to a decision on something which it regards as uncontroversial when fewer than 40 Members are present.

Mr. Crossman: It is not for me to tell the House whether to come to a decision. I am saying only that the Motion does not change the right of a Division and a Division is a test of a quorum. Four hon. Members have said that the Motion would remove the quorum. They were wrong, because the quorum is required for a Division, and as the Division could


still be held we have not removed the quorum.

Dr. M. P. Winstanley: Will the right hon. Gentleman revert to his argument about the practicability of a Count during the dinner hour? Surely the point here is not so much whether it is practical as that a Count is not necessary because everybody knows perfectly well that 40 Members are present, where they are and what they are doing.

Mr. Crossman: The argument used by the hon. Gentleman is an argument that I do not like to use. We have Patronage Secretaries who are efficient people and who maintain a number of people here. What I seriously say is that if one looks at the history of the rare use of the Count, it has worked far more against the individual Member.

Mr. F. A. Burden: It is the threat of the Count that matters.

Mr. Crossman: That does not matter to the Patronage Secretary or the other side.
If hon. Gentlemen would consider the times the Count is used, it is used by the back bencher, usually in a moment of impulsive anger, or whatever phrase was used by the right hon. Gentleman. The question is whether we should not, for our own convenience, limit that, and retain the quorum for the ultimate test of the House, which is that of making decisions. I would have thought that this was a practical thing, and I was a bit shocked at the language used about the Consolidated Fund Bill.
It is all very well saying that it is a Government Measure, but it is basically a private Members' day, and surely it is a little hypocritical to say that the counting out of a Private Member in the middle of his piece will not harm the Private Member, because he can come back the next day and there may be more time: this does harm the Private Member, and does not harm anyone else.
I still think that we are right to say that this is a very reasonable Measure, and I do not think that it will harm the gravity or majesty of the House, least of all our power to take decisions, which remains completely unaffected.

Mr. Lubbock: Mr. Lubbockrose

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order. Had the right hon. Gentleman given way or had he concluded?

Mr. Crossman: Concluded.

Mr. Lubbock: I was not intending to intervene in this debate, but the reply which the Leader of the House has just given is profoundly unsatisfactory, particularly that part of his reply relating to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin (Mr. Bessell), which is of a disingenuousness that I have never heard, even from him.
To say to my hon. Friend that Counts are not normally held during the Adjournment debates, when there are only two people in the House, and to suggest that this invalidated the whole of his argument is quite monstrous, because that was not what my hon. Friend was talking about. He would not give way to my hon. Friend. What my hon. Friend was talking about was Government Business. We are not talking about the half hour Adjournment debates.
I argue with the right hon. Gentleman that it is highly undesirable to have Counts during Adjournment debates, because that is private Members' time. I will also grant that there is something to be said for the Amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Blackburn), because even if one can return to this another day, as the right hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) has pointed out, it may not be convenient for hon. Gentlemen who have subjects to raise later on the Order Paper but who are prevented from doing so by the Count being called.
There is a lot to be said for this. If the Leader of the House had proposed that there should be no Counts on these two occasions, that would not have removed the existing right of the back bencher to call a Count during Government business. I have been in here while there has been important business being transacted involving hundreds of millions of pounds, particularly on the Air Estimates, in which I take part nearly every year. Then we are voting perhaps £500 million on each of these debates, and yet one sees only half a dozen hon. Members in the Chamber. Under those circumstances it is right that the back bencher


should draw attention to the absence of a quorum to make sure that others come in to play their part in these important matters. [Laughter.] Hon. Gentlemen may laugh, but if they had paid more attention to the Service Estimates in the past, perhaps we would not be squandering hundreds of millions of pounds on defence, which this country can ill-afford. Therefore I do suggest that it is the right of the back bencher to be able to call attention, during the Services Estimates, to the absence of a quorum, and 40 Mem-tiers is a very reasonable number.
I am fully justified in saying this, because it is a power which I have used sparingly myself, although it has frequently occurred to me during those debates that perhaps the lack of 40 Members should be drawn to the attention of the public outside. Many of my visitors who have come to this House to watch the proceedings say, "Is it not extraordinary that you have 630 Members in your assembly, and yet when you are voting £500 million worth of our money you can only muster 12 Members in the Chamber? "Believe me, this is a matter which gives me a great amount of anxiety when I try to explain it to my constituents. I do not see why, by this Motion the Leader of the House has brought before us, my power to draw to the attention of the public outside this House a lack of Members when voting many millions of pounds should be removed in this way.
I do beg the Leader of the House to think once again about this. He seemed to be giving way partially, by accepting the argument my hon. Friend the Member for Bodmin was putting towards the conclusion of the debate. It is not too late for him to say he will think again. If he wants to be as fair as a Leader of the House should be, he ought to take the sense, not only of views which have been expressed from these benches, but also of the interesting and powerful speech which one of his hon. Members

made, and withdraw the Motion, and allow counts to proceed as they have done hitherto.

11.1 p.m.

Dr. David Kerr: I am seduced—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."]—hon. Members should not draw a conclusion too rapidly —only by the prospect of the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) sitting there clutching himself with anxiety in deciding whether or not to call a Count. I want to make, but only briefly, a comment on his speech, because it subscribes to the well-known fallacy about our practice here in this House, and it would be a pity if this went by default. The idea which he was so busily and assiduously promoting, that Members of Parliament must be on the benches throughout every important debate, run so counter—

Mr. Lubbock: I did not say that.

Dr. Kerr: Hon. Members opposite, who are so busy promoting this idea, are remarkable only by the fact that they do not in practice subscribe to it. In fact I am not sure that the quality of debate in this House would necessarily be raised if the Chamber were crowded throughout the day in the kind of way which has been implied by the hon. Member for Orpington when he makes his plea about defence debates. The whole truth about our procedure is that it relies upon quite other practices in which we are involved outside the Chamber, in deliberations which are as important and should be as influential as those which take place in the Chamber.
I support everything which my right hon. Friend has said, and I trust the House will give him its full support.

Question put, That the Amendment be made: —

The House divided: Ayes 207, Noes 117.

Division No. 20.]
AYES
[11.3 p.m.


Albu, Austen
Baxter, William
Boardman, H.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Beaney, Alan
Booth, Albert


Alldritt, Walter
Bellenger, Rt. Hn. F. J.
Boyden, James


Anderson, Donald
Bence, Cyril
Braddock, Mrs. E. M.


Ancher, Peter
Bessell, Peter
Brooks, Edwin


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Bidwell, Sydney
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Binns, John
Brown, Bob(N 'c'tle-unon-Tyne, W.)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Bishop, E. S.
Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)


Barnes, Michael
Blackburn, F.
Buchan, Norman


Barnett, Joel
Blenkinsop, Arthur
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)




Cant, R. B.
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Orme, Stanley


Carmichael, Neil
Howie, W.
Oswald, Thomas


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hoy, James
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Coe, Denis
HuckfieM, Leslie
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Coleman, Donald
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Paget, R. T.


Concannon, J. D.
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Palmer, Arthur


Conlan, Bernard
Hunter, Adam
Pardoe, John


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Park, Trevor


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Dalyell, Tam
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Pavitt, Laurence


Davidson, James(Aberdeenehire, W.)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Judd, Frank
Pemland, Norman


Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Kelley, Richard
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Kenyon, Clifford
Price, William (Rugby)


Davies, S. O. (Merthyr)
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Probert, Arthur


Dell, Edmund
Kerr, Dr. David (W 'worth, Central)
Randall, Harry


Dempsey, James
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Rees, Merlyn


Dewar, Donald
Leadbitter, Ted
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Ledger, Ron
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Dickens, James
Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Dobson, Ray
Lee, John (Reading)
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)


Doig, Peter
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Rose, Paul


Dunn, James A.
Lomas, Kenneth
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Dunnett, Jack
Loughlin, Charles
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Lubbock, Eric
Ryan, John


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Shaw, Arnold (llford, S.)


Eadle, Alex
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Sheldon, Robert


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
McBride, Neil
Short, Rt. Hn. Edward(N'c'tie-u-Tyne)


Ellis, John
McCann, John
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Ensor, David
Macdonald, A. H.
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
McGuire, Michael
Slater, Joseph


Ewing, Mrs. Winifred
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)
Small, William


Fernyhough, E.
Mackintosh, John P.
Spriggs, Leslie


Finch, Harold
Maclennan, Robert
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Foot, Michael (Ebbw vale)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Swain, Thomas


Forrester, John
MacPherson, Malcolm
Thomson, Rt. Hn. George


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Tinn, James


Galpern, Sir Myer
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Urwin, T. W.


Garrett, W. E.
Mallalieu,J.P.W.(Huddersfieid,E.)
Varley, Eric G.


Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Mapp, Charles
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)


Gregory, Arnold
Marks, Kenneth
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Grey, Charles (Durham)
Mendelson, J. J.
Watkins, David (Consett)


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mikardo, Ian
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Weilzman, David


Hamling, William
Mitchell. R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Wellbeloved, James


Hannan, William
Molloy, William
White, Mrs. Eirene


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Whillock, William


Haseldine, Norman
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Wilkins, W. A.


Hazell, Bert
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Heffer, Eric S.
Moyle, Roland
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Henig, Stanley
Murray, Albert
Winnick, David


Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Neat, Harold
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Hilton, W. S.
Newens, Stan
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Hooley, Frank
Oakes, Gordon
Yates, Victor


Hooson, Emlyn
Ogden, Eric



Horner, John
O'Malley, Brian
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Howarth, Robert (Bolton, C.)
Oram, Albert E.
Mr. Joseph Harper and Mr. Ernest Armstrong.




NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Cordle, John
Glyn, Sir Richard


Astor, John
Costain, A. P.
Goodhew, Victor


Awdry, Daniel
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Sir Oliver
Gower, Raymond


Baker, W. H. K.
Crouch, David
Grant, Anthony


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. &amp; Fhm)
Cunningham, Sir Knox
Gresham Cooke, R.


Biffen, John
Dance, James
Grieve, Percy


Biggs-Davison, John
Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Gurden, Harold


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)


Black, Sir Cyril
Doughty, Charles
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere


Blaker, Peter
Drayson, G. B.
Hastings, Stephen


Boardman, Tom
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Heseltine, Michael


Bromley-Davenport,Lt. -Col. Sir Walter
Elliott,R.W.(N'c'tte-upon-Tyne,N.)
Hiley, Joseph


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Emery, Peter
Holland, Philip


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus, N&amp;M)
Farr, John
Hordern, Peter


Burden, F. A.
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Hornby, Richard


Carlisle, Mark
Fortescue, Tim
Hunt, John


Chichester-Clark, R.
Gibson-Watt, David
Hutchison, Michael Clark


Ciegg, Walter
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)


Cooke, Robert
Glover, Sir Douglas
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)







Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Summers, Sir Spencer


Jopling, Michael
Murton, Oscar
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Kaberry, Sir Donald
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Temple, John M.


King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Neave, Airey
Tilney, John


Kitson, Timothy
Nott, John
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Osborn, John (Hallam)
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Page, Graham (Crosby)
Vickers, Dame Joan


Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Loveys, W H.
Pink, R. Bonner
Walters, Dennis


MacArthur, Ian
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Webster, David


McMaster, Stanley
Prior, J. M. L.
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


Maddan, Martin
Pym, Francis
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Mawby, Ray
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Woodnutt, Mark


Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Royle, Anthony
Worsley, Marcus


Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Sharpies, Richard
Wylie, N. R.


Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)
Younger, Hn. George


Monro, Hector
Silvester, Finderick



More, Jasper
Smith, John
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Stainton, Keith
Mr. Reginald Eyre and Mr. Humphrey Atkins.


Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)

Main Question, as amended,:—

The House divided: Ayes 196, Noes 125.

Division No. 21.]
AYES
[11.12 p.m.


Albu, Austen
Eadie, Alex
Macdonald, A. H.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
McGuire, Michael


Alldritt, Walter
Ellis, John
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)


Anderson, Donald
Ensor, David
Mackintosh, John P.


Archer, Peter
Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Maclennan, Robert


Armstrong, Ernest
Fernyhough, E.
MacMillan, Malcolm (Western Isles)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Finch, Harold
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McNamara, J. Kevin


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Foot, Michael (Ebbw vale)
MacPherson, Malcolm


Barnes, Michael
Forrester, John
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)


Barnett, Joel
Fraser, John (Norwood)
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)


Baxter, William
Galpern, Sir Myer
Mallalieu,J.P.W.(Huddersfieid,E.)


Beaney, Alan
Garrett, W. E.
Mapp, Charles


Bellenger, Rt. Hn. F. J.
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)
Marks, Kenneth


Benco, Cyril
Gregory, Arnold
Mendelson, J. J.


Bidwell, Sydney
Grey, Charles (Durham)
Mikardo, Ian


Binns, John
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Milne, Edward (Blyth)


B shop, E. S.
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)


Blackburn, F.
Hamling, William
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hannan, William
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Harper, Joseph
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)


Booth, Albert
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Moyle, Roland


Boyden, James
Haseldine, Norman
Murray, Albert


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Hazell, Bert
Neal, Harold


Brooks, Edwin
Heffer, Eric S.
Newens, Stan


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Henig, Stanley
Oakes, Gordon


Brown, Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Ogden, Eric


Brown, R. W, (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Hilton, W. S.
O'Malley, Brian


Buchan, Norman
Horner, John
Oram, Albert E.


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Orme, Stanley


Cant, R. B.
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Oswald, Thomas


Carmichael, Neil
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Carter-Jones Lewis
Howie, W.
Page, Derek (King's Lynn)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Hoy, James
Paget, R. T.


Coe, Denis
Huckfield, Leslie
Palmer, Arthur


Coleman, Donald
Hughes, Emrys (Ayrshire, S.)
Park, Trevor


Concannon, J. D.
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Conlan, Bernard
Hunter, Adam
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Jackson, Colin (B'h'se &amp; Spenb'gh)
Pavitt, Laurence


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Dalyell, Tarn
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Penlland, Norman


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Price, William (Rugby)


Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)
Judd, Frank
Probert, Arthur


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Kenyon, Clifford
Randall, Harry


Davies, S.O. (Merthyr)
Kerr, Mrs. Anne (R'ter &amp; Chatham)
Rees, Merlyn


Dell, Edmund
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Dempsey, James
Kerr, Russell (Feltham)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Dewar, Donald
Leadbitter, Ted
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Diamond, Rt. Hn. John
Ledger, Ron
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)


Dickens, James
Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)
Rose, Paul


Dobson, Ray
Lee, John (Reading)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Doig, Peter
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)


Dunn, James A.
Lomas, Kenneth
Ryan, John


Dunnett, Jack
Loughlin, Charles
Shaw, Arnold (llford, S.)


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Sheldon, Robert


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Short,Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tie-u-Tyne)




Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Urwin, T. W.
Wilkins, W. A.


Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Varley, Eric G.
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)


Slater, Joseph
Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Small, William
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Winnick, David


Spriggs, Leslie
Watkins, David (Consett)
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)
Yates, Victor


Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Weitzman, David



Swain, Thomas
Wellbeloved, James
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Thomson, Rt. Hn. George
White, Mrs. Eirene
Mr. Alan Fitch and Mr. Neil McBride.


Tinn, James
Whittock, William





NOES


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Astor, John
Glover, Sir Douglas
Murton, Oscar


Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n &amp; M'd'n)
Glyn, Sir Richard
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Awdry, Daniel
Goodhew, Victor
Neave, Airey


Baker, W. H. K.
Cower, Raymond
Nott, John


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos. &amp; Fhm)
Grant, Anthony
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Bessell, Peter
Gresham Cooke, R.
Page, Graham (Crosby)


Bitten, John
Grieve, Percy
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Biggs-Davison, John
Gurden, Harold
Pardoe, John


Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Pink, R. Bonner


Black, Sir Cyril
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Blaker, Peter
Hastings, Stephen
Prior, J. M. L.


Boardman, Tom
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Pym, Francis


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Heseltine, Michael
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt. -Col. Sir Walter
Hiley, Joseph
Royle, Anthony


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Holland, Philip
Sharpies, Richard


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus, N&amp;M)
Hooson, Emlyn
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Burden, F. A.
Hordern, Peter
Silvester, Frederick


Carlisle, Mark
Hornby, Richard
Smith, John


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hunt, John
Stainton, Keith


Clegg, Walter
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Steel, David (Roxburgh)


Cooke, Robert
Irv ne, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)


Cordle, John
Jernings, J. C. (Burton)
Summers, Sir Spencer


Costain, A. P.
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Sir Oliver
Jopling, Michael
Temple, John M.


Crouch, David
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Tilney, John


Cunningham, Sir Knox
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Dance, James
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
van Straubenzee, W. R.


Davidson, James(Aberdeenshire,W.)
Lane, David
Vickers, Dame Joan


Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
Walters, Dennis


Doughty, Charles
Loveys, W. H.
Webster, David


Drayson, G. B.
Lubbock, Eric
Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
MacArthur, Ian
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
McMaster, Stanley
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Elliott,R.W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.)
Maddan, Martin
Woodnutt, Mark


Emery, Peter
Mawby, Ray
Worsley, Marcus


Ewing, Mrs. Winifred
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Wylie, N. R.


Eyre, Reginald
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.
Younger, Hn. George


Farr, John
Mitts, Stratton (Belfast, N.)



Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
More, Jasper
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Fortescue, Tim
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Mr. Timothy Kitson and Mr. Hector Monro.


Gibson-Watt, David
Morrison, Charles (Devizes)

Resolved,

That Standing Order No. 30 (Counting) be amended as follows: —

Line 4, after ' clock'. insert ' or after ten of the clock '.

Line 6, after ' clock', insert ' or after ten of the clock'.
' Line 14, at end add—
(3) The House shall not be counted during the proceedings on any Consolidated Fund Bill or Appropriation Bill, or during proceedings in the course of which Mr. Speaker is directed to put forthwith any question.
(4) If at any time after four of the clock on the House being counted it shall appear that 40 Members are not present, the business under consideration shall stand over until the next sitting of the House, and the House shall stand adjourned.'

Standing Order No. 56 (Lords Amendments)

Order read for resuming adjourned debate on Question [14th November],

That Standing Order No. 56 (Lords amendments) be amended as follows: —

Line 4, at end add—

(2) When the Order of the Day for the consideration of Lords Amendments to a public bill has been read, the House shall proceed to consider the same without question put, unless the Member in charge thereof desires to defer their consideration:

Question again proposed.

Mr. M. Stewart: We have discussed this earlier.

11.21 p.m.

Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter: As the right hon. Gentleman said, we have discussed this, and I doubt, therefore, whether there is much reason, in the Government's present mood, in discussing it further tonight. It is an infinitely less important change than those which the House has already considered, and does very little damage to our procedure compared with the immense damage which the Lord President has perpetrated earlier this evening. Nevertheless, it is unnecessary.
We were given no evidence previously, and the First Secretary has given none tonight, that the provision under which, before we take Lords' Amendments, we take a Motion that they be now considered, has ever done any harm or been abused. The right hon. Gentleman has never argued that. It is simply being removed as part of the streamlining of our procedure for streamlining's sake, in which the Government seem to be engaged.
Although it has done no harm, it has been useful to an Opposition at least twice in my recollection, on the Land Commission Bill and the Leasehold Reform Bill. In both cases, the House was asked to consider highly complicated Lords Amendments at very short notice without any opportunity to make up our minds about their significance and importance or to discuss them with well-informed outside opinion. This is a way —a small one, I agree, compared with the previous one—in which the Government can treat an Opposition badly and therefore it is, on balance, a pity to take it away.
I know that it has been argued—my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for the Wirral (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd) argued it on the previous occasion—that if we are pressed to take Lords Amendments too quickly, we can seek to move the Adjournment, but this depends on the Chair's willingness to accept such a Motion, whereas, under the present Standing Orders, we have the right, if we wish, to debate the Question of whether or not we then debate the Lords Amendments.
I do not wish to take up much time on what is relatively infinitely less important a proposal, and, in view of what has been done tonight, there would be

no point in taking this relatively small matter to the Lobbies. But I do not propose to let it go without protest and without saying that this, in a small matter —as earlier in big matters—is an indication of the Government's determination to bend our procedure to a state in which, more and more, we become merely the means of registering the decrees of Government.

11.26 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: I support my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) in his protest against the Motion. It is again preventing the Opposition and back benchers opposite from protesting at business being rushed. It is not just fanciful that this may happen. It happened only a few weeks ago, on the Leasehold Reform Bill, when their Lordships finished dealing with the Bill in another place at five o'clock in the evening, whereupon we had to debate the Lords Amendments on the following day, quite insufficient time having been provided for us. But because we were allowed to debate that matter, protest was made on the Motion that the Lords Amendments be now considered. It was a proper protest at that time and it is wrong that we should not be given that power. We are merely endeavouring to put a curb on being rushed into legislation without having the opportunity of consulting people outside as well as inside the House. I therefore add my protest to that of my right hon. Friend.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That Standing Order No. 56 (Lords amendments) be amended as follows:

Line 4, at end add—

(2) When the Order of the Day for the consideration of Lords Amendments to a public bill has been read, the House shall proceed to consider the same without question put, unless the Member in charge thereof desires to defer their consideration.

Notices of Motions (Private Members)

Mr. Crossman: I beg to move,
That, during the present Session, notice of a subject to be raised on any motion for which a ballot is held in pursuance of paragraph (7) of Standing Order No. 5 (Precedence of government business) shall, notwithstanding the practice of the House, be given at the Table or in the Table Office not less than nine days


before the day on which the notice of motion is to have precedence:
Provided that no such notice shall be given on a day on which the House does not sit.
This is the last of the Motions we wish to put tonight, and I hope that, in moving this one, we will not be accused of dictatorial conduct, since this is a unanimous recommendation of the Select Committee on Procedure and, I suggest, is a slight improvement on the way in which we conduct our Ballot for Private Members' Motions.
The proposal is to allow hon. Members to make their Motions more topical; to draft them nearer the event instead of having to state them the moment that successful hon. Members are called. For this purpose, hon. Members should be given a number of days to choose their subjects, and while this may take an element of drama and surprise away from the Ballot, it should improve the quality of debate.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,

That, during the present Session, notice of a subject to be raised on any motion for which a ballot is held in pursuance of paragraph (7) of Standing Order No. 5 (Precedence of government business) shall, notwithstanding the practice of the House, be given at the Table or in the Table Office not less than nine days before the day on which the notice of motion is to have precedence:

Provided that no such notice shall be given on a day on which the House does not sit.

FOOT-AND-MOUTH DISEASE (SHROPSHIRE)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.— [Mr. Harper.]

11.29 p.m.

Mr. Jasper More: I am grateful for this opportunity of raising again the serious problem of the foot-and-mouth outbreak in Shropshire. As I was fortunate enough in last week's debate to catch Mr. Speaker's eye, I will be brief tonight and merely refer to a few matters that concern the southern part of the county.
In the debate last week I asked the Minister—

Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter (Kingston-upon-Thames): Where is he?

Mr. More: —if we could have some clear guidance. I shall send the right hon. Gentleman a letter which I have received from the clerk of my county council pointing out that, in some respects, clear guidance has not been received from the Minister.
I am also concerned about the question of publicity. In a letter which the Minister sent to me he refers to statements which have been put out on the radio, but one must be critical of the fact that we have had nothing in the Press. The only advertisement I have seen in the Press is one referring to the national emergency, but, on studying it, one sees that it was inserted not by the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in this country but by the Irish Ministry. Clear instructions should have been given, particularly in local papers, and each week the farmers and public generally should have been informed about what should be done.
Everybody is particularly concerned that there should be a proper organisation if we are ever faced with this emergency again. People want to see somebody firmly in control so that everything in advance is known about what action should be taken. They want to know who is responsible and all the other factors so that, if we are again faced with this emergency, everybody concerned can go into action knowing from the first what they should do.
As I have already said, I do not want to take up a lot of time myself as I was fortunate enough to be called last week, so I hope that with these few words, which the Minister will be able to read in HANSARD tomorrow, he will let me have an answer in writing.

11.31 p.m.

Mr. John Biffen: I should like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. More) for his generosity and kindness in limiting his remarks in so brief a fashion. I will detain the House only shortly, but there are a number of points which are clearly of considerable concern to anyone representing the Oswestry division because Shropshire is a stricken county.
I calculate, on the most modest assessment, that the compensation that has been paid by the Government in respect of stock slaughtered in the division alone must be at least £2 million to £3 million.
There are four points which I wish to make. The first concerns the question of how best one can limit the spread of this disastrous epidemic. Under this heading, I should like to ask the Minister if he could give some guidance as to what should be the convention governing football matches. The whole question of public gatherings, both in infected areas and counties and in adjacent counties, affecting those who may travel from the infected counties, is one on which we would be grateful for the most clear and unambiguous guidance.
The particular point which I want to put to the Minister is whether he is satisfied with the present situation whereby football teams are not only travelling within the infected counties but are travelling from infected areas to play in non-infected areas, and taking crowds with them. This has caused a great deal of disquiet and it has been the subject of numbers of representations which I have had. I would be very grateful if the Minister could comment on that.
There are three points I wish to make which are concerned with alleviating the very considerable distress now characterising the areas affected by the disease. The first point concerns the rise in valuations of stock slaughtered as the epidemic has proceeded, and I think I can do no better than to quote from a letter I received in my postbag this morning from a constituent, Mr. Sockett, of Waen Farm, Maesbury, near Oswestry:
 Since my farm was cleaned of foot-and-mouth I have been working cleaning up other farms that have had foot-and-mouth.
I am finding that farmers on farms that I am working on are getting £20–£30 per cow more than I received when I had my outbreak on November 12th.
Although our valuation was fair at the time, I do not understand the rise in the valuation especially as those who had foot-and-mouth first will be longest out of production.
It seems to me that there must be very general anxiety in the agricultural community that there shall be full and fair equity for the early victims of this epidemic, and I think the point raised by my constituent is one on which guidance —and the most generous interpretation— will be expected of the Minister, because it is not just a question of referring to the indicated preferences of the Gowers Report.
This outbreak is of a severity and consequence totally out of scale with anything this country has suffered before. Therefore I feel we must look at these things with different interpretations. In relation to the payment of grants, will the Minister indicate his preparedness to have certain grants paid at least in part before inspections have been completed to verify that the conditions for these grants have been carried out? As he will appreciate, in many cases Ministry officials cannot visit these farms to verify that the conditions have been met, but these are farmers going through very considerable economic distress, and some payment in advance—and as it were on trust—would be very much appreciated.
My final point concerns what can be done to enable farmers to continue in employment farm workers who very often are in situations where they will not be able to practise their full range of farming activities for many months to come. In these circumstances, there must be real pressure for them to limit their costs to the minimum. This presents a genuine and inescapable threat to the jobs of many farmworkers in Shropshire and in infected areas outside the County of Shropshire.
I feel—and this, again, will be a characteristic of adjacent counties—that alternative employment prospects are not particularly rosy. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will consider making what representations he can to his colleagues in the Cabinet to see that the Selective Employment Tax mechanism can be used in such a way as to encourage farmers to retain labour which they might otherwise feel obliged to dispense with over the coming few months.
I promised that I would limit my remarks. I have touched briefly upon four points, but they are all points of major significance, not only for Shropshire, but for all areas which are affected by the epidemic. In Shropshire and on the Welsh border there is a tendency to feel that London seems far away and that, perhaps, there is an element of remoteness about the whole approach to the problem. I know that this may be an unfair interpretation of the way in which the Ministry has moved in this matter, but I assure the Minister that there is paramount need for sympathetic consideration of the points which I have raised if the


Welsh border areas are to be made to feel that they have the sympathy, the attention and, above all, the zealous concern of the authorities at Westminster.

11.37 p.m.

Sir John Langford-Holt: I undertake to speak for only a couple of minutes, but I would like to make two points. My hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) has spoken about football matches. I wonder whether the Minister will address himself also to the question of schools, because they are getting near the end of term. Would he not consider that children passing from one village to another, from one part of the county to another, are also a threat to the spread of this disease?
This outbreak is unique in its severity, extent and duration. We have not seen its like in this country before. My hon. Friend mentioned compensation for replacement value. I implore the Minister to consider this point urgently. The important feature which we must bear in mind—the extent to which agriculture will suffer in the long term—depends upon the industry's ability to recover from this attack.
What the Minister must do, and as a matter of urgency, is to take any possible action to see that the industry is put on its feet again. One of the ways in which he can do this is to make sure that the compensation which is given, both to the type of person mentioned by my hon. Friend and to all farmers who have been afflicted, will enable them to recover from the attack at the earliest possible moment.

11.38 p.m.

Mr. Timothy Kitson: The one point which I would like to raise with the Minister, and about which I have been in touch with his Ministry today, is the length of the gaming season. I wonder whether it would be possible to extend it for a fortnight. There is a problem here. There has been a good deal of confusion over shooting. The statement which was issued tonight has clarified the position, and I am sure that everybody is grateful for it because people will know the position.
The Minister will appreciate that far too many pheasants running about in

the spring will be an embarrassment to many farmers, who want to see them done away with before sowing time. The game season was extended during the war. Many people would be grateful if the Minister could give guidance about whether it will be possible to shoot pheasants, and pheasants only, in the first fortnight of February.

11.40 p.m.

Mr. John M. Temple: There is one point I should like the Minister to clear up in regard to precautions which should be taken by livestock owners during this epidemic of foot-and-mouth disease. It is in regard to disinfectants. Manufacturers of disinfectants are not able to test them in conditions of virus. Although they may be all effective against all other kinds of bacteria, they are not always effective against foot-and-mouth virus and that can be tested only in the Ministry's laboratories.
Another point concerns their efficacy in frost conditions. There is no doubt that frost deteriorates disinfectants and separates the phenols from the emulsifiers in tar-based disinfectants. I understand that the Minister has said that salt should be put on the disinfectant pads, but I gather that salt destroys the effect of tar-based disinfectants and makes them relatively ineffective.
We should have clear guidance from the Ministry about the effectiveness of these "approved" disinfectants under all conditions.
I appeal to the Minister to issue a brochure or pamphlet telling farmers their rights and duties on infected premises. This is a matter I have suggested to the Minister before. I hope that he will get out such a pamphlet in the near future.

11.42 p.m.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Fred Peart): I am grateful to all hon. Members who have spoken in this debate. I thought it would be wrong for me to intervene immediately after the main speaker because the hon. Members for Shrewsbury (Sir J. Langford-Holt), for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Kitson) and for the City of Chester (Mr. Temple), apart from the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. More), who initiated the debate, have


quite rightly a very important interest in this matter. I thought it right to hear their points of view.
If I do not cover in the time at my disposal every specific point which has been made, it is not to be taken that I am being discourteous but it is because I have taken a careful note of the matters which have been raised. The hon. Member for Ludlow spoke about no clear guidance having been given. We have done everything possible in this direction. As the hon. Member knows, I have even taken the liberty and privilege of making a Ministerial broadcast on radio and television. I have tried to impress on the farming community and the general public the sort of conduct that should be applicable in this case. I have spelled out in detail specific guidance to the farming community.

Mr. More: Mr. More rose —

Mr. Peart: I have little time—
Mr. More: The right hon. Gentleman did not hear my speech.

Mr. Peart: I came in immediately and I was given the points made by the hon. Member. I hope that there is no conflict between us. We are both anxious to see an end to this outbreak and the winning of the battle. I shall do all I can to give guidance and I have taken note of what has been said. If we can improve publicity, even at this stage, I shall do so. We try to give all the useful publicity that we can.
I gather that the hon. Member mentioned organisation if foot and mouth disease should occur again. I have said that I will set up an independent investigation. The Gowers Committee reported a long time ago. Even if there had not been the present outbreak, it would have been necessary to have another investigation, for, after all, science changes.
I am grateful to the hon. Members for Ludlow, Oswestry (Mr. Biffen), Shrewsbury and the City of Chester—who was with me recently in the area concerned— for the way in which they have acted and for their moderate and responsible attitude. I mean this sincerely. There is still a grave situation in the County of Shropshire, which includes the constituencies of most of those who have spoken.

I welcome this opportunity to say a few words about it.
I assure the House that I am no easy optimist in this matter. One has to be realistic. The plain fact for all to see is that we have here an exceptionally savage strain of the virus, with an attacking power and a power of mobility beyond anything experienced in this country before. This does not mean that it cannot be beaten. We have to battle on resolutely until the epidemic has been stamped out. There will be matters of detail which we shall have to examine. I am glad that the hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks raised the question of pheasant shooting. I shall carefully consider his observations. I know that he has been in touch with my Department, but it is a matter affecting not only the Ministry of Agriculture but other Departments as well, including the Home Office. I shall treat his suggestion sympathetically. I think that he has a point, but I say no more about it at this stage. I shall probably wish to have a further word with him about it.
We have, as I say, to battle on resolutely until the epidemic has been stamped out. My own public career has been associated very closely with the interests of British agriculture, and the industry's sufferings in the West Midlands weigh heavily on me as they do on all hon. Members, especially those who have spoken tonight and all others who represent agricultural constituencies.
Now, the question of control of animal movements. In the debate on 4th December, the hon. Member for Ludlow said that the disease had only just appeared in his constituency and that, because it had appeared in sheep at least 20 miles from any other case, it must have been due to lack of control of movements. The hon. Gentleman is right to be perturbed at the appearance of the disease in sheep in this area—it is a grave development—but I must say, without wishing in any way to be offensive, that he has no evidence to support what he has said about the cause. He was right to raise the matter, but I emphasise that he has no evidence for what he said about the cause itself.
I have been asked about markets, and I know that the hon. Member for Oswestry is concerned about them in his own area. When I was in Worcester


yesterday, many farmers put questions to me on the same matter. I have been asked about the future role of the fat-stock market in our present campaign. Licensed fatstock markets in infected areas have the advantage of ensuring full veterinary supervision, inspection of animals and disinfection of vehicles. This does not mean that farmers should go to the markets themselves. Nor does it mean that we shall not license individual animals direct to the slaughterhouse, subject to all proper precautions. But we cannot have dealers going from farm to farm collecting animals. I stress that, and I hope that I have the support of all hon. Members.
The hon. Member for Oswestry has raised with me a particular point about lack of access to an abattoir at Market Drayton. I regret that I cannot allow fatstock to pass from the main infected area in Shropshire to the infected area further east. I am sure that hon. Members would rightly criticise me if I did.
Now, the control of movement of people and the whole question of football matches and shooting. There has been much discussion about the prevention of gatherings of people. Football matches are not a disease risk in themselves. In or near infected areas they should not be held on farmland or adjacent land or where access is over farmland. That is my advice to the organisers. My advice to people on farms or in contact with farms is not to go to football matches or other large gatherings. I shall use my powers to prohibit access to farmland should that prove necessary.
Shooting parties also have been drawn to my attention. I was glad to see the recent Press notice by the Country Landowners' Association and the National Farmers' Union. I have decided that, in order to reduce the risk of spreading the disease, I should use my powers under the recent Order, if necessary, to prevent the holding of shooting parties in the infected areas or in any county adjoining the infected areas. In the remaining counties of England and Wales any person coming from an infected area or the counties adjoining an infected area should not be admitted to land on which a shoot is taking place.
All these measures amount to a considerable restriction on the public. But

I am sure that that is right in this situation. I fully appreciate that the restrictions will be irksome for some, particularly over Christmas, but they are necessary.
The hon. Member for Oswestry laid stress on the future, and I know that this very much concerns the farming community. Many hon. Members have mentioned it to me. They have asked me about help with rehabilitation and the problems of farmers in the meantime. We must win this battle. We must make a success of our slaughter policy. We must also think in terms of the future, but the main effort must be put into winning the battle in the areas where we still have the disease.
I have already announced a new ploughing grant for farmers who have lost livestock, and it is welcomed by the industry. I am glad to see the national response, of which I found evidence yesterday in Worcester.

Mr. Emlyn Hooson: People in the ancillary industries, as well as in agriculture, are concerned about their overdrafts. They are unable to get the income that normally comes in at this time of year to reduce them.

Mr. Peart: The hon. and learned Gentleman has spoken to me on this point. I believe that he is thinking, for example, of those who are connected with haulage and deal with the cattle industry. If he writes to me, I shall give the matter sympathetic consideration, but the question of consequential loss is not easy. However, I think that the new ploughing grant can help the farmer who has been affected in certain circumstances. I have also promised that there shall be interim payments on improvement schemes. I have said that livestock subsidies shall not be lost for lack of inspection by my officers. Tax problems are being thrashed out in consultation with the National Farmers' Union.
The problems of farm workers have been raised, and these are important. Hon. Members may have seen the press release yesterday by the National Union of Agricultural Workers about my meeting with Lord Collison. The ploughing grant will help in providing some work for farm workers and some income to


pay their wages. Some farm workers are employed by my Department on infected farms. There is always much work to be caught up with on farms, and:his is an opportunity, though a tragic one, to do many jobs that have had to wait. I am sure that no farmer who can avoid it will lose a worker at present.
I am well aware of the problem of increases in livestock values since compensation was assessed in the early days of the epidemic. It has been mentioned to me by farmers, and the hon. Member for Oswestry raised it tonight. The matter has not been overlooked, and there will be discussions on it shortly with the National Farmers' Union. I give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. This is not begging the question. Sometimes I am chided about giving assurances, but I mean this sincerely. We will have talks with the unions on this, and I am aware of the problem.
The hon. Member for Ludlow has raised questions of the scale of research and of future animal health safeguards for meat imports, and he has written to me about this. These are matters for the independent committee, which I have undertaken to set up when the epidemic is over. This is right for the reasons which have been mentioned. I shall see that the Committee conducts a thoroughgoing review. That is important for the industry.
I know that time is now up. I am grateful to hon. Members for being so constructive. I say this to them. I know that they feel strongly about this epidemic. I do, too—I must, as Minister responsible for agriculture. We must win this battle. Let us hope that we shall.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at five minutes to Twelve o'clock.